Oct
3rd
2012
Response. · 10:37pm Oct 3rd, 2012
I finally got around to sorting through the pre-reader offers (all 34 of them) and sent out responses to everyone (I think. If I missed you, I apologize).
If I didn't select you, I apologize again, but several of the people who had offered were either people I've worked with in the past, or people who's own work I personally enjoy, thus I kindda did the biased thing and picked them (known vs. unknown and all that).
If I did miss you, essentially what I would like to have said is that I took down the names of everyone who applied and are keeping them all on file, so if I didn't pick you now, I might in the future should the need for more pre-readers arise.
Report
asylum1388 · 185 views
·
If you ever need a pre-reader I'd be more than happy to help though.
And I did read those 10,000 words in an hour.
It's cool man, but if you do ever need me feel free to let me know.
It's ok, I will be happy to help you
I think being biased and going with those you know and have worked with would be a better idea in this situation...kudos
401116 you know I kinda agree with this guy/girl (unknown). If you'fe worked with them in the past, then that means that you had to let them go for some reason. Therefore, it would be better to try someone new than to use someone that failed you in the past. Don't you just love convoluted logic and conjecture? I do
401428
I wouldn't say your logic is convoluted, you are correct. Why would you use someone that you fired for poor quality...I wouldn't. But the picked pre-readers are people Asylum has worked with with positive results (at least thats how I interpret it). So thats why I supported his/her (I'm unsure of gender as well) decision.
My logic says if you have a positive relationship with a peer and they have done good work....why not use them again?
Both reasonings are correct.
401428>>401909
Just because I ceased working with them does not mean that I let them go. The partnership(s) just ended due to lack of necessity.
402082
Gotcha!