Paying to Post

[LadyVer]

A period of time equals what? The volunteer editors list hasn't worked in years.

I think it works too well. I had to deactivate my editor's profile because I was getting too many requests for editing help, especially for categories I don't edit.

 

[sr71plt]

What it would do to some of the novels and novellas (at least the ones prepared in advance) would be to have them entered as one piece in the section set aside for them already. Probably no harm done there. And it might encourage folks to finish their novels and novellas before posting them, and thus get rid of the "never finished" ones. No harm done there either.

But it's a pie in the sky discussion. It doesn't influence anything that's going to happen.

 

[lovecraft68]

Go fuck yourself.

Gotta pay me $5 first

 

[sr71plt]

A period of time equals what? The volunteer editors list hasn't worked in years.

Worse, it gives the false impression to posters that it's a vetted list because it is Web site sponsored. Some are good help for the folks who sign up with them, of course, but there's no vetting. Anyone can claim to be an editor. Most are no better than a second pair of equally knowledged eyes to the writer. This is useful, of course, but the true training and capability are not being honestly advertised by the Web site.

The current functional work around is far better--a thread listing who is willing to help that month, a forum where statement of project and negotiation can go on--and no false claim of a vetted program by the Web site. The requester knows the risk they are taking and knows they have full responsibility for who they sign up with.

All that's needed is for Laurel to formally kill a program that isn't working and has more chance of doing damage to the writers than good. And what would be left is something that's working better and gets false Web site sponsorship out of that business.

So, the question is why doesn't Laurel do it? It would be the honest thing to do and wouldn't cause her a lick of work. Does the Web site want to foster false impressions to the detriment of the writers? (That's a question for lemming apologists, by the way, not for ML.)

 

[LadyVer]

It's my understanding that the only requirement for a Lit volunteer editor is that they be a Lit member, which is the same requirement for a Lit writer.

As both Lit writing and editing are done on a non-paid basis, and many Lit writers don't have a lot of writing experience, I think it's unrealistic to expect that all editors be vetted. Both writers and editors get lost down a black hole at times for various reasons. And authors don't always accept basic mechanical changes that editors make in Track Changes. One author explained that it changed his style and made his writing sound like someone else. Well, yeah, like he was educated. But then, if he wanted help with his mechanics, I was left with the question why he wanted an editor because I sure wasn't offering development editing, and I wasted a lot of time on a volunteer project I could have used being more productive.

Finding a good editor on Lit, or anywhere else, is a crap shoot. That Lit offers writers the options of finding an editor via the Editor Profile new list and search, via the monthly available editors' thread in the Editor's Forum, or via posting a public thread in the Editor's Forum is probably more than other non-paid sites have.

And editor profiles are a good indication of how the editor will edit.

 

[sr71plt]

It's my understanding that the only requirement for a Lit volunteer editor is that they be a Lit member, which is the same requirement for a Lit writer.

As both Lit writing and editing are done on a non-paid basis, and many Lit writers don't have a lot of writing experience, I think it's unrealistic to expect that all editors be vetted. Both writers and editors get lost down a black hole at times for various reasons. And authors don't always accept basic mechanical changes that editors make in Track Changes. One author explained that it changed his style and made his writing sound like someone else. Well, yeah, like he was educated. But then, if he wanted help with his mechanics, I was left with the question why he wanted an editor because I sure wasn't offering development editing, and I wasted a lot of time on a volunteer project I could have used being more productive.

Finding a good editor on Lit, or anywhere else, is a crap shoot. That Lit offers writers the options of finding an editor via the Editor Profile new list and search, via the monthly available editors' thread in the Editor's Forum, or via posting a public thread in the Editor's Forum is probably more than other non-paid sites have.

And editor profiles are a good indication of how the editor will edit.

That's my understanding too (on the requirement). I don't think that's the impression writers looking for an editor get from the Web site-sponsored program here.

Folks volunteering to be a second pair of eyes is great. It's even greater if they have editorial training and talent, which some do.

The current program is misleading and dishonest, however. The workaround that has been established (a monthly thread on those available to help and a forum where writers and those willing to help can meet without the false suggestion there is a formal program) is honest and works well. The volunteer editorial program isn't and doesn't. It's sort of a nonbrainer for anyone supportive of the writers here what to do with the current misrepresenting volunteer editor program. Drop it and go with what was put in its place because writers have found the formal system broken and misleading. That's not conjecture. They complain about it all the time on the editor's forum. Anyone who seriously listens to the users of the Web site knows that.

 

[LadyVer]

That's my understanding too (on the requirement). I don't think that's the impression writers looking for an editor get from the Web site-sponsored program here.

Folks volunteering to be a second pair of eyes is great. It's even greater if they have editorial training and talent, which some do.

The current program is misleading and dishonest, however. The workaround that has been established (a monthly thread on those available to help and a forum where writers and those willing to help can meet without the false suggestion there is a formal program) is honest and works well. The volunteer editorial program isn't and doesn't. It's sort of a nonbrainer for anyone supportive of the writers here what to do with the current misrepresenting volunteer editor program. Drop it and go with what was put in its place because writers have found the formal system broken and misleading. That's not conjecture. They complain about it all the time on the editor's forum. Anyone who seriously listens to the users of the Web site knows that.

I don't know. I think it's kind of a no-brainer that volunteer editors on a non-paid website aren't all professional editors. I would think most professional editors have better things to do than hang around Lit looking for a story to edit that doesn't pay.

There's plenty to complain about by both writers and editors, but given that Lit is basically a site that opens a door to getting writing and editing experience, things could be a lot worse.

 

[_Lynn_]

It's my understanding that the only requirement for a Lit volunteer editor is that they be a Lit member, which is the same requirement for a Lit writer.

As both Lit writing and editing are done on a non-paid basis, and many Lit writers don't have a lot of writing experience, I think it's unrealistic to expect that all editors be vetted. Both writers and editors get lost down a black hole at times for various reasons. And authors don't always accept basic mechanical changes that editors make in Track Changes. One author explained that it changed his style and made his writing sound like someone else. Well, yeah, like he was educated. But then, if he wanted help with his mechanics, I was left with the question why he wanted an editor because I sure wasn't offering development editing, and I wasted a lot of time on a volunteer project I could have used being more productive.

Finding a good editor on Lit, or anywhere else, is a crap shoot. That Lit offers writers the options of finding an editor via the Editor Profile new list and search, via the monthly available editors' thread in the Editor's Forum, or via posting a public thread in the Editor's Forum is probably more than other non-paid sites have.

And editor profiles are a good indication of how the editor will edit.

Have you gone through the list? Browsed as if you were the one looking for help?

There are 515 pages.

The oldest date given for a profile update is 6/25/03.



As for the profile indicating how well someone will edit? Who knows if they wrote their own profile. They could have a friend do it for them.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't know. I think it's kind of a no-brainer that volunteer editors on a non-paid website aren't all professional editors. I would think most professional editors have better things to do than hang around Lit looking for a story to edit that doesn't pay.

There's plenty to complain about by both writers and editors, but given that Lit is basically a site that opens a door to getting writing and editing experience, things could be a lot worse.

You obviously haven't read in on the editor's forum much then. (Although the biggest problem reported on the volunteer editor program is either that no one responds or they respond and waltz away without returning an edit--both alone are reason enough to scrap what's here in a listing and do something else.)

Very few "volunteer editors" are editors at all. It's not just something you decide to hang out a shingle and do. There are graduate degrees in being able to do it competently and/or training programs within publishing houses. Having taken high school or college English alone doesn't cut it.

So the program title alone is dishonest and misleading. Beta readers are useful and that's the most that most claiming here to be editors should claim. That's the most a formal program should claim it would provide. (Although Lit. has shown that it doesn't care enough to sponsor any such program--and it doesn't need to. A functional system exists outside of the volunteer editor program.)

You don't get editing experience here just by declaring yourself an editor any more than you become a surgeon by declaring yourself one and buying a handsaw.

Nothing is worse in writing than thinking you are getting good guidance from someone who doesn't know any more about what they are doing than you do. And, sorry, that's the situation on Lit. And writers are using unqualified people to edit and are posting their stories and being told that they should find an editor--and they don't have a clue what went wrong.

 

[LadyVer]

You obviously haven't read in on the editor's forum much then. (Although the biggest problem reported on the volunteer editor program is either that no one responds or they respond and waltz away without returning an edit--both alone are reason enough to scrap what's here in a listing and do something else.)

Very few "volunteer editors" are editors at all. It's not just something you decide to hang out a shingle and do. There are graduate degrees in being able to do it competently and/or training programs within publishing houses. Having taken high school or college English alone doesn't cut it.

So the program title alone is dishonest and misleading.

You don't get editing experience here just by declaring yourself an editor any more than you become a surgeon by declaring yourself one and buying a handsaw.

Nothing is worse in writing than thinking you are getting good guidance from someone who doesn't know any more about what they are doing than you do. And, sorry, that's the situation on Lit. And writers are using unqualified people to edit and are posting their stories and being told that they should find an editor--and they don't have a clue what went wrong.

I've read quite a few EF threads. That I don't comment on them all doesn't mean I don't see them. I believe editors have 72 hours to respond to a Lit author's initial request for editing. If an author doesn't get a response within the 72 hours, it would indicate the editor isn't available or isn't interested. It would be courteous if the editor responded. However, expecting all courtesies to be followed through on on a free porn site may be wishful thinking.

If you believe that only professional editors should be used on Lit, good luck with that one. And I'm not being sarcastic. Professional editors expect to be paid, and paid very well. They might be interested in editing a story here or there on Lit, but I doubt it would lead to any consistent and collaborative work with any Lit authors. Not only that, but why would they even consider putting up with some of the abuse some of the Lit writers dish out in their arrogant belief that they're above the editor? (And I'm speaking generally here). Granted, there are some very good writers on Lit, but the majority are either new writers or just passing the time or looking for a cyber partner, or not really serious about writing.

An editor does not need a degree to edit and edit well. Now, most professional editors have degrees, but not all of them. Just like all authors don't have degrees.

Anyone can use Lit as a springboard, whether for writing or editing. In this economy and job market, everyone should be doing whatever they can to gain new skills and find new ways of increasing their income. I would assume that's why you're here.

I don't see where the program is dishonest or misleading. If a writer isn't happy with the volunteer editorial program. then maybe he/she should consider hiring a professional editor or getting to know editors who comment on Lit or searching til they find someone who will work with them well.

"And writers are using unqualified people to edit and are posting their stories and being told that they should find an editor--and they don't have a clue what went wrong." Geeze, Pilot, don't make me laugh. Look, writers have to develop a relationship with editors. If an editor doesn't respond or the author doesn't like their work, they need to keep looking until they find an editor they like. Not only that, you know as well as I do, that there are plenty of Lit writers who won't even accept good editing changes and that's why many editors don't want to be credited.

 

[LadyVer]

Have you gone through the list? Browsed as if you were the one looking for help?

There are 515 pages.

The oldest date given for a profile update is 6/25/03.

As for the profile indicating how well someone will edit? Who knows if they wrote their own profile. They could have a friend do it for them.

I don't know what list you're looking at, but the editor's list is updated immediately when an editor creates or modifies their profile. I was in my profile a few weeks back making some changes, and it updated immediately. Then I deactivated it. I then checked the list to make sure my profile wasn't listed, and it wasn't. When you click on the Volunteer Editor's list, it shows profiles chronologically, those that have been added and modified. The day I changed mine, there were other profiles listed with that date on them.

Here's the link: http://www.literotica.com/editors/editors.php
The last entry is dated 9/11.

 

[_Lynn_]

I don't know what list you're looking at, but the editor's list is updated immediately with an editor creates or modifies their profile. I was in my profile a few weeks back making some changes, and it updated immediately. Then I deactivated it. I then checked the list to make sure my profile wasn't listed, and it wasn't. When you click on the Volunteer Editor's list, it shows profiles chronologically, those that have been added and modified. The day I changed mine, there were other profiles listed with that date on them.

Here's the last page.

 

[LadyVer]

Here's the last page.

I don't know why your page is different. All I know is when I click on the Volunteer Editor's list link, the most recent profiles show... I would assume that the writers who were contacting me were looking at the most recent page as well or they would have never found me.

 

[sr71plt]

If you believe that only professional editors should be used on Lit, good luck with that one.

I haven't posted that, have I? You seem quite defensive on the point. I've posted what, three times, on this thread that a beta reader is useful and probably all that can be expected. I think it's probably about all that's needed on a story reading site that makes no claim to be a critique site.

I think I've made my points and that you're just going to continue to be defensive about them. And you continue to misrepresent what I posted (I didn't say an editor had to have a degree to edit, for instance. I said they also could get the experience by working their way up in a publishing house--that, in fact, is how most of them do get their chops.)

I believe, whether or not you do, that the formal program (that is horribly broken anyway) induces writers to think they are getting an experienced editor--and 99 times out of 100 they aren't. And, frankly, I think you are being personally defensive so aren't likely to agree with me--and I don't care whether or not you do. I've seen you comment on what you think is great writing, and your discernment doesn't impress me in the least.

I never posted that they needed an experienced editor to polish up a story well enough for most readers to be posting at Literotica.

I just posted that the volunteer editor program is broken, which it is, and that the Web site isn't being honest about what a writer is getting by trying to use it. I don't think that the Web site is malciously dishonest about it; I think the adminstrators just don't care all that much about the users. They set up a program and walked off and have no idea--or care--about the condition that it has deterioriated to.

That it's a program that could and should just be dropped and let the workaround that already has come in place hold. You said that other Web sites don't offer this service. Maybe they are more honest and care more for their users, because it ain't workin' here.

 

[_Lynn_]

I don't know why your page is different. All I know is when I click on the Volunteer Editor's list link, the most recent profiles show...

Did you click through all 515 pages? Did you look at the profiles of people with updates in 2005, or 2004, or 2003? Did you check that list as if you were a newbie to writing . . . a newbie to Lit . . . trying to find someone to help you?

 

[LadyVer]

Did you click through all 515 pages? Did you look at the profiles of people with updates in 2005, or 2004, or 2003? Did you check that list as if you were a newbie to writing . . . a newbie to Lit . . . trying to find someone to help you?

Why would I--and why would a writer do that as well--when clicking on the link takes one to the most recent profiles? The most recent profiles are the ones that are relevant. If a writer ends up on an old page, I would think it would just be a matter of clicking on the arrow that takes one to the most recent profile page. (Which is page 1, btw).

 

[_Lynn_]

Why would I--and why would a writer do that as well--when clicking on the link takes one to the most recent profiles? The most recent profiles are the ones that are relevant. If a writer ends up on an old page, I would think it would just be a matter of clicking on the arrow that takes one to the most recent profile page.

Right. The list is wonderful in your opinion. We're wrong. We don't know what we're talking about. You've been here a year. We've been here since 2006, so we don't know anything.

 

[LadyVer]

Right. The list is wonderful in your opinion. We're wrong. We don't know what we're talking about. You've been here a year. We've been here since 2006, so we don't know anything.

I didn't think that, imply that, or say that. If you choose to take this personally, I would ask why. In the grand scheme of things, this issue rates about on the scale of did you have a coke today or Dr. Pepper. All I know is when I click on the link it takes me to page 1. If this isn't what happens when you click on the link, maybe there's a bug in the system somewhere.

 

[sr71plt]

A writer here thinking their skills are being developed when, quite often, it's only their bad writing habits that are being solidified because they have sought in good faith to get help from someone who knows no more than they do and is hiding behind an enabling Web site program rates on the scale of did you drink a Coke or a Dr. Pepper today?

I think that indicates how seriously you take writer development. Actually, I'm not surprised.

 

[_Lynn_]

A writer here thinking their skills are being developed when, quite often, it's only their bad writing habits that are being solidified because they have sought in good faith to get help from someone who knows no more than they do and is hiding behind an enabling Web site program rates on the scale of did you drink a Coke or a Dr. Pepper today?

I think that indicates how seriously you take writer development. Actually, I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised either.

 

[LadyVer]

A writer here thinking their skills are being developed when, quite often, it's only their bad writing habits that are being solidified because they have sought in good faith to get help from someone who knows no more than they do and is hiding behind an enabling Web site program rates on the scale of did you drink a Coke or a Dr. Pepper today?

I think that indicates how seriously you take writer development. Actually, I'm not surprised.

I would think that knowing that at least some people can get to page 1 when they click on the editor's link would be a good thing. I guess this means that when you click on the link you don't get page 1 either.

 

[xelliebabex]

Why would I--and why would a writer do that as well--when clicking on the link takes one to the most recent profiles? The most recent profiles are the ones that are relevant. If a writer ends up on an old page, I would think it would just be a matter of clicking on the arrow that takes one to the most recent profile page. (Which is page 1, btw).

I recently searched for a new editor on the sites Editor list and just as LadyVer said the newest profiles came up first. If the profile was more than a day or two old i didn't bother reading it and still read through more than 25. I only wanted to see who had recently posted that they available. Seems like it works to me.

 

[xelliebabex]

You obviously haven't read in on the editor's forum much then. (Although the biggest problem reported on the volunteer editor program is either that no one responds or they respond and waltz away without returning an edit--both alone are reason enough to scrap what's here in a listing and do something else.)

Very few "volunteer editors" are editors at all. It's not just something you decide to hang out a shingle and do. There are graduate degrees in being able to do it competently and/or training programs within publishing houses. Having taken high school or college English alone doesn't cut it.

So the program title alone is dishonest and misleading. Beta readers are useful and that's the most that most claiming here to be editors should claim. That's the most a formal program should claim it would provide. (Although Lit. has shown that it doesn't care enough to sponsor any such program--and it doesn't need to. A functional system exists outside of the volunteer editor program.)

You don't get editing experience here just by declaring yourself an editor any more than you become a surgeon by declaring yourself one and buying a handsaw.

Nothing is worse in writing than thinking you are getting good guidance from someone who doesn't know any more about what they are doing than you do. And, sorry, that's the situation on Lit. And writers are using unqualified people to edit and are posting their stories and being told that they should find an editor--and they don't have a clue what went wrong.

Give the writers some credit here.

Its a free site that purveys smut, most of us are pretend writers, expecting professional editors on a free site that are willing to try and make sense of some of the stuff written here is laughable. People are not that silly that they would expect it. Not everyone is a total moron but having an extra pair of eyes go through your work with a red pen in their hand works and if people want professional help they should be prepared to pay for it. lol

You can go to a pharmacy who will tell you the funny looking lump on your nose is an obvious pimple and give you some cream fro free.
Or you can alternatively go to a dermatologist and get some advice about adult onset acne and have tests run and be sure your doing the exact right thing.
You get what you pay for.

What your suggesting is that Manu and Laurel get an accredited staff to deal with the run of the mill ramblings and the possible few gems that is the lit product or withdraw what small help there is for beginning writers based on the fact that they endorse it.

Give people enough credit to realise a volunteer editor is not a professional.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't make any assumptions how a seeking writer would use the list. One thing is clear. If it were a list given any cleanup attention, the question wouldn't arise. But it isn't.

I don't look at the list. I look at the constant stream of frustrated writers complaining on the editor's forum that the system didn't work for them. The only one who I've seen endorse it, interesting enough, is someone wanting to appear to be an editor.

 

[LadyVer]

Rotflmao