This is the part where things become a lot less focused, because changing one thing usually requires other things to be implemented as well. Total shifts in group policy like this aren't easy to talk about on a case-by-case basis because the whole process is a comprehensive idea. So feel free to bring up other issues that need sorted out, if they're part of your overall plan and relate to our next issue:

How do we have users submit stories to the group?

Right now they post a thread, describe the story and what they want done with it, and link it. Then they read a spreadsheet and some Bio things, and send off PMs to editors hoping for a reply. This system averaged about 4.35 on my 1-6 scale of effectiveness, which is in the positive, but I know we could probably do better. Plus, there was some weird voting like someone who ranked it a 2 and then said "it works perfectly" on the followup question - I put that answer there so people who gave us a 6 could actually answer the next required question, and didn't intend for anyone other than 6-givers to choose it. Then the people who did give us a 6 often offered recommendations of how it could be improved, so... not sure if that average even means anything because of the wonky voting, but in any case let's try to do better.

By far the popular option was instituting a lower rank beneath "editor," someone who doesn't go in depth or do hardcore editing, but browses around and offers general advice depending on the scenario.

Also popular was moving the Bio stuff around to make that aspect more clean and professional, while otherwise leaving the system largely as-is.

Finally, we had a suggestion similar to the new-rank idea, in which two different kinds of editor are implemented, one which works with a wide range of stories and one which works more closely with just a handful. I question where this differs from the first option listed here, and wonder if it might be better to just advise people looking for quick grammar spot-checks to head elsewhere - a referral partnership with another editing firm, if their admins are willing.

There's also the issue of whether or not we should continue using Forum threads at all, if folder dumping would be easier on everyone or just create unnecessary confusion. The other big enormous issue on the table here is the whole process of submission, both the steps authors must take to get their stories posted here (if #2 in the first vote is chosen, then we assume unwanted stories have already been rejected by the gate guard) and how we address those stories as well.

Some givens:
-You don't need to discuss unwanted stories here, as we're in the process of voting on that. If your plan hinges on certain options from that discussion being passed, then go ahead, but otherwise you don't have to talk about that sort of thing in this thread.
-No editor can ever be forced to work with an author who spits on all given help and refuses to accept criticism with grace. If you find your partner isn't someone you can work with, you can leave at any time. I'd never allow those types of people to continue wasting my editors' time.

Discuss.

Also, humor:

1101653

Hard to give my opinion, as I'm not really an editor, but I think I gave my two cents on adding some sort of rank to look over stuff and what-not. Really wish I had my response with me so I could elaborate.

1102181 I'll post the link to the response sheet again. Not sure what response you're referring to.

1102270

Found what I was going to say:

It'd be better to have a few guys just look over stories for the editors and give some advice to fix it up (assuming it's "fixable") and then let the editors handle it after corrections have been made by the author themselves.

Maybe provide a warning to the authors, as well. "Pre-readers will give advice on fixing stuff, and being a rock in a situation where you want your story fixed will not help you or the pre-readers/editors at all. Let them do their job."

The author should be leaning towards "change" rather than saying his or her stuff is perfect. They came to the editor to get it fixed, right? They came for an over-analysis of their fic, correct? They want more than grammar fixes; they want harsh critiques. That's what this group is (mostly) about.

1101653 I'm a little unclear on how the "Folder Dumping" would work. Would the authors "dump" their story into an editor file? Or would there be PM pinging until an editor accepts the story? Does the editor dump the story into their own folder? Or would an admin, sherriff or bureaucrat dump this into an editor's folder which would match well with the editor's interest? Depending on how this is implemented, I can seeing it being beneficial, but I can also see it becoming a pain in everyone's asses.

I do like the idea of either having a sub-group of editors, or collaborating with another editing group for having grammar and punctuation editing done. Then having a sub-group of editors focus on plot, giving advice, suggestions, maybe even word usage and sentence structuring, and generally providing the spit 'n polish to really help improve the fic.

I also like the option of introducing a lower rank than editor, (like a prereader perhaps?) an adviser knowledgeable enough to basically provide feedback. "This here doesn't work, and here's some ideas on how to improve or fix it." or "This character doesn't react believably in this scenario, here's some reactions that would be more appropriate for that scenario." This also gives the opportunity for the group to expand and grow, so that those without the desire, or the requisite knowledge to work as an editor can still join, and contribute to the fanfic community, and doing this would also ease some of the editorial burden some of us editors currently work under, as the "purple ones" are doing both feedback and critique, but also grammar and punctuation editing as well.

Regarding the moving the bio thing. Personally, if we were to implement this. I would like to see something akin to a permanent sticky in the editor folders, so those that are looking for an editor that will share their interests, and work with them. They can simply click on the folder and read the sticky in the editor's folder, instead of having to jump pages and try to read through one huge editor page and then decide. On that note, we should include what's on the spreadsheet and attach or modify the sticky thread, then authors aren't having to wade through 20 different editor cells and pick. It'll be right there, or attached somehow. Then it becomes just a matter of picking an editor that meshes with the author's interests.

Regarding the Wide-Range and In-Depth-Range editors I can see this being beneficial, but assuming that this is implemented, it should be implemented across the whole editorial department, because a drawback that I see happening here, is too few editors doing one of the two, and the ones that do, being swamped and burning out. And we shouldn't want that to happen for any of our editors.

Regarding the Forum. I like where authors PM us with a small synopsis, and the type of editing being requested; grammar, advice, or both, and upon acceptance, the story is added to the editor folder. I'd like to see the forum implemented more as a localized dispenser of information. Grammar threads, writing characterization, OCs, background ponies, main character ponies, etc. And threads of these types being made as permanent stickies.

Peace,

AuthorGenesis

1101653 Well... In my personal opinion (which yes, it doesn't matter much) having a core group of major editors for the group, while also putting in place a lower rank/placement for pre-readers (or various forms of assistance that ISN'T long term/short term editing) would work best... Not sure about improving the process of GETTING an editor though...

1102505

Maybe provide a warning to the authors, as well. "Pre-readers will give advice on fixing stuff, and being a rock in a situation where you want your story fixed will not help you or the pre-readers/editors at all. Let them do their job."

Right, I'll most definitely put something like that in when I rewrite the group front page. That's something we should have no matter what system of acceptance we're using.

Hmm. I like the idea of a "pre-editor," advising the most basic changes before editors even get a look. That'll go on the voting record for sure, or maybe those responsibilities can be handed out to the moderator(s) if we put them in place.

1102898

I'm a little unclear on how the "Folder Dumping" would work. Would the authors "dump" their story into an editor file? Or would there be PM pinging until an editor accepts the story? Does the editor dump the story into their own folder? Or would an admin, sherriff or bureaucrat dump this into an editor's folder which would match well with the editor's interest? Depending on how this is implemented, I can seeing it being beneficial, but I can also see it becoming a pain in everyone's asses.

I think the original idea was to have all incoming stories be submitted to the group not through Forum thread but by simply adding it to the group. We'd get feed notifications (which... there's a problem right there... I skip the hell right over almost all my feed notifications) and that'd be that. Then if editors picked them up, they'd go to another folder (folders per editor, or a system based on waiting/editing/done states, or however else) and ultimately be deleted from the group entirely once everything was done. This, as much as I understand, is pretty much how the big editing firms work. And for that reason alone it makes me very uneasy.

None of the specifics are set, though. That's the point of discussion. Folder-based submission was voted for in the survey, so here it is in discussion. Now we bang out the details and come up with ideas to take to the committee for a vote. You got anything that'd make the idea useful? Or should we just chuck it entirely? And why?

I would like to see something akin to a permanent sticky in the editor folders

You can't put Forum threads into editor folders. Also, permanent stickies for all editors would get ridiculous because almost nobody advocated removing some of our editors, and that means so many stickied threads you have to scroll your mouse wheel two or three times just to see the regular forum.

On that note, we should include what's on the spreadsheet and attach or modify the sticky thread, then authors aren't having to wade through 20 different editor cells and pick. It'll be right there, or attached somehow. Then it becomes just a matter of picking an editor that meshes with the author's interests.

I have no idea what you mean by this or how we'd even begin to implement it. Do you have any specific ideas?

Regarding the Wide-Range and In-Depth-Range editors I can see this being beneficial, but assuming that this is implemented, it should be implemented across the whole editorial department, because a drawback that I see happening here, is too few editors doing one of the two, and the ones that do, being swamped and burning out. And we shouldn't want that to happen for any of our editors.

If we went that route, I'd probably make a system of "we need X number of this kind and Y number of that kind" thing, and then look around for volunteers. And if things got out of hand, we could always ask for more. Unless someone comes up with a better way of doing things - that's just my thinking.

Regarding the Forum. I like where authors PM us with a small synopsis, and the type of editing being requested; grammar, advice, or both, and upon acceptance, the story is added to the editor folder. I'd like to see the forum implemented more as a localized dispenser of information.

I'm personally a bit hesitant to remove story thread submission because my original vision for this group was to have multiple people run around giving advice, and to basically create a community of people rather than "somewhere to go to get your stuff fixed." We have that, sure, but we're only what... 20 active people, tops? Few people are doing what I originally imagined, so maybe it's time to cut our losses and be "that place you go." Maybeee...

1102954 Yeah, it looks like a lot of people are on that side of things, and I imagine that'll be favored by the committee. Prereaders make a lot of sense, even for a group like ours.

I don't know of any alternatives to thread submission, either. There's got to be tweaks we can make, especially in the whole bio thing, but on the other hand all those things were put in place because they seemed to be workable and efficient methods at the time. This isn't the first time we've taken a hammer to the group and totally beaten it into a different shape, and I'm kind of skeptical that we'll ever find something that works "perfectly." Still, we gotta try.

1101653 I support the multiple kinds of editors concept but have nothing more to really add unless someone else's opinion prompts me.

Sharing my opinion here:
I really like the idea of a partnership to do the nitty-gritty grammar corrections in a story.
Other than that-
Would it not be practical to have one thread in the forums as a "master list" for keeping track of Fictions submitted for approval by the group? Then pre-editors (or whatever they're going to be called) could ask authors to post there so there is evidence a request has been submitted.

1104324 How about actual story submission and pairing with editors? Assuming any initial stages (like the gatekeeper number 2 option from the vote) have been dealt with, what does the author do next?

1101653 I enjoy having the threads stay active because sometimes its nice to get a second or third or seventh opinion on style/plot related items. I also like the pre-reader/editor idea in that someone glances through the story and then guides them to either those more into plot or those more into pure grammar. One thing about moving bio-stuff around is that we could have existing editors place themselves into "Long-term", "Short-term", "Grammar-only" "Plot-Only", etc. sticky forum threads. That way, if an author knows they want a certain type of editing they dont have to muck about in the single sticky thread that exists currently.

1104995 Yeah, same reasons for my wanting to keep forum threads. As for organizing them, it would be possible to put the stuff into Google docs according to type of editing, and link them in a single sticky. Keeps down forum clutter. Really like that idea though.

1104394 They wait to be picked up by an editor, I imagine. Since a central principle of the group is that an editor only works with people they want to work with, I don't see any alternative to a writer setting their work afloat and hoping it appeals to an editor.

1105268 The how of that is what I'm trying to get people to discuss here. Forum thread? Dump in a folder? Nobody's going to pick them if they don't "set their work afloat," and in order to do that we have to make sure they have a boat.

1105308 A folder dump seems like the logical solution. Since inconvenience is an issue, having all the stories in a single convenient easy-to-locate easy-to-access folder makes perfect sense to me.

1105326 The problem there is it requires editors to look at and read a bit of the story and potentially ask authors what they want done, their goals for the story (EqD), how deep a look they want us to take, etc etc - all those things that I currently have people explain right out out of the gate in a Forum thread. Which, conveniently, allows other editors and authors to join in the discussion. Which was my whole original idea. A folder dump would absolutely destroy that system, so I hope we can get some good pro's for such a system if it's voted into practice.

If you're trying to make a dig at me for my inconvenience comment, then here's where you're taking it too far the other direction - my justification for the inconvenience of writing out Forum threads is that it's necessary and worth the tradeoff. If they're willing to write about their story and what they want done, that demonstrates an attitude more in line with our personalized nature than a larger firm's "dump everything here and we'll tell you what to fix" approach - which I want us to avoid if at all possible. It's absolutely an inconvenience for authors to go through the trouble of writing out a Forum post. But that's the point. There's one layer of inconvenience forcing them to put in effort in order to make things a little easier on us and demonstrate they're willing to put in effort, once we start editing stuff for them. Such is my argument for keeping Forum threads around, but modifying some other aspects like the Bio thread and spreadsheet and othersuch hurdles like that.

Are you... okay? You're not being your typical opinionated self... I'm concerned I might have seriously offended you with that comment, which... fuck, I can't apologize for that enough. I wasn't trying to piss on the idea, but describe it for what it was.

1105351

...all those things that I currently have people explain right out out of the gate in a Forum thread.

Well, OK then. Consider the answer you just gave me, which made the question

How about actual story submission and pairing with editors? Assuming any initial stages (like the gatekeeper number 2 option from the vote) have been dealt with, what does the author do next?

totally unnecessary and pointless, my answer to said totally unnecessary and pointless question. -_- Seriously, why ask me that when you have a system that's already working well and satisfies your requirements?

If you're trying to make a dig at me for my inconvenience comment...

No, I'm not.

Are you... okay? You're not being your typical opinionated self... I'm concerned I might have seriously offended you with that comment, which... fuck, I can't apologize for that enough.

Eldorado, you singled out my idea for a special and pointed expression of your personal disapproval in the thread that was to act as the ballot. To reiterate, the group administrator who imitated the survey, started and is officiating over the discussions, and is presently acting as the top official in the group selected a specific suggestion from a specific person and took special care to label it in such a way as to make it as clear as possible that he personally disapproved of people voting for that option. As much as I adore you and understand your total lack of malice in doing what you did, I'm going to react to being implicitly chastised for having the temerity to suggest something that so happened to rub you the wrong way. Considering my totally altruistic motive for the suggestion, trying to relieve the burden on editors and specifically an editor that I'm working with personally and happen to like, that stung ever so slightly.

All that said, we're good. I just don't have anything much to add, as I said in my very first post on this thread. I like and strongly approve of the present story submission system and only suggested a folder dump because you asked me for a story submission idea. I still think that a folder dump would be a good supplement to the present system, allowing a story good enough to grab an editor's attention on its own merits to bypass the minor inconvenience of writing a forum thread advertising it, but I'm not going to try and defend it if you don't like it.

1105853

Seriously, why ask me that when you have a system that's already working well and satisfies your requirements?

Because in my eyes it's just barely functional, and that's sort of how the group feels about it. 4.3 or whatever the average was, and I think it should actually be lower because there were a couple people who voted 6 and still gave suggestions for improvement. I ask everyone because it's entirely possible there's a vastly better alternative somewhere out there waiting to be brought up, and I'd be an idiot to not allow discussion.

Considering my totally altruistic motive for the suggestion, trying to relieve the burden on editors and specifically an editor that I'm working with personally and happen to like, that stung ever so slightly.

And I really do appreciate your suggestions, truly. Like I said, I'm sorry if my words were harsh, but I'll just quit while I'm behind and be more neutral next time.

I still think that a folder dump would be a good supplement to the present system, allowing a story good enough to grab an editor's attention on its own merits to bypass the minor inconvenience of writing a forum thread advertising it

How the hell would that work? I'm not saying it's bad, I'm genuinely confused. How do?

1106120
Here's an idea that's a compromise between the thread and the folder system:

1. A writer who wishes to have their story edited creates a new thread.
Simple enough. Title it as your story, include a synopsis, link your story, and write within your thread which editor(s) you would like to edit your story.

2. PM the editors who have been requested to edit.
A Forum moderator can probably do this.

3. Share the story to the Overly-Extensive Editor's master gmail, who would then give the accepted editor commenting permissions.
When an editor accepts the story, have the writer share his/her story to the Overly-Extensive Editors gmail. It would be a dedicated gmail solely for this group. Give the gmail editing permissions.

From here, the Forum moderator (or a dedicated person) would then log into this master gmail and upload the story to a community GDocs folder for the entire Overly-Extensive Editors group. Within that large folder would be individual sub-folders for each of the editors. The story would then be dropped into the corresponding editor's folder, given permissions, and would then be edited.

The importance of this is the editing permissions for the master gmail. By default, anyone who is given editing permissions can also change the permissions for others. So, the master gmail would be able to give commenting permissions to the correct editor, allowing them to edit.

Benefits:
What I like most about the community GDocs folder is that it's organized. An admin can easily log into the master gmail and see all of the stories his editors are doing, or have finished doing. The admin can even track the progress of the stories, and hop around stories offering advice to each one of them, or give a second opinion on some of the changes the editor makes.

In the current system, someone could easily look at the Editor Bios and PM an editor without posting a thread. The admin would then never know that his editor for his group has taken on another assignment, and thus, never know how many assignments are being tackled in his group. He wouldn't even be able to track the progress, make sure his editors are correcting the right things, or even offer advice, because the story hasn't been shared with him.

It's also works because many stories haven't been uploaded to FiMFiction yet. They're on GDocs.

Faults:
It may be complicated to implement at first. However, given the right person to set it all up (I would gladly volunteer if this passes), it's easy work for both the editor and the writer.

Idea: Community Editing
Through the user-friendly programming of GDocs, permissions may be changed so that editors would be able to view or comment through the entire O.E.E folder and every editor's assignments and stories, instead of just their own. By simply changing their permissions on the folder to "View Only", or even "Comment Only" editors would be able to look/comment other editor's assignments, and quite possibly, create the community editing Eldorado has always advocated.

Through GDocs chat box, and replying to comments, many opinions can be made on a single project. So instead of just an editor-writer relationship, we have an entire team, all working together, bringing all of our strengths together and accompanying for our weaknesses.

Perhaps we could even set up entire group events where we could all look at a single story together. We could cycle between stories a month, or have a lottery for them. It really creates a lot of opportunities for us to do as a group.

Link to Example (Click on "Open in Drive", because the first screen's deceptive.)

1106120

How the hell would that work? I'm not saying it's bad, I'm genuinely confused. How do?

Toothless the Night Fury is a prudent dragon. Let's ask him: 1106792

See? What a great plan! Opening this up for discussion was a great idea, Ally. ^_^

1106792 That sounds like a lot of work, but I think it could make sense. What you're basically suggesting is moving the whole "folder idea" away from FiM entirely and putting it in Docs. That's so simple and obvious I never would have ever arrived at that conclusion myself.

1108594 That's why we're doing it. Now, to PM the people who've not yet voted on the original issue. I want to put that to bed.

1108726 I agree. Speaking of putting things to bed, I'm on the cusp of dropping another worldbuilding anvil on your head, you lucky smoothpony you. It's even bigger than the last one!

1108739 Alright. Might be a bit before I get to it, but I'll start right away. once it arrives.

1108744 Excellent. ='^.^'=

1108594

Toothless the Night Fury is a prudent dragon. Let's ask him:

See? What a great plan! Opening this up for discussion was a great idea, Ally. ^_^

Aww, thanks. Hope that post answered what you were looking for.

That sounds like a lot of work, but I think it could make sense. What you're basically suggesting is moving the whole "folder idea" away from FiM entirely and putting it in Docs. That's so simple and obvious I never would have ever arrived at that conclusion myself.

Yup, that's the idea! It take some work implementing and/or maintaining it, indeed. But as long as the committee agrees on using this, leave it to me, and I can take care of setting everything up.

From there, all we need to do is change the group policy to have everyone share their story with editing permissions to the master gmail, get everyone's gmail, and assign someone to shoot out PMs for editor requests (Forum Moderator).