Subject: EDQ #4: The Queue & the Editing Process
Posted by: agony
Date: Apr 19 13
Today I'd like to talk about the editing process - how it works, and what to expect from it. If you have a vision of the editors in an office, diligently working away at quizzes from nine to five -- well, that's not even close to reality.
I'll start with something that most of you know -- the staff at FT are volunteers. This means, yes, that we are not paid, but a more meaningful way to look at this is that we work here in our spare time. A few staff are retirees, some are students, but most of us have jobs. Many of us have children. We have lawns that must be mowed, dogs that must be walked, and significant others who expect a significant portion of our attention and time. We slip our work here into odd moments of our lives, just as the authors and players do. Some of us only get here once a week or so; others are here every day, but often only for five or ten minutes at a time.
The quizzes that you see coming online are only a fraction of the work the editors do. A large number of quizzes edited don't make it online - nearly half of created quizzes never get online. The vast majority of Correction Notes are for quizzes whose authors no longer visit the site, which means the editors are taking care of them. This often involves considerable research and/or extensive rewriting. Subcategories are always being created, quizzes moved around. There are constant discussions going on about practices and policies - the site is always under refinement, always being tweaked to make it work better.
The actual editing is not usually a simple process of ticking off a list of problems-- bad spelling, check; time dependency, check; titles not in quotation marks, check-- but can be very time consuming. It's not unusual for an editor to take from fifteen minutes to half an hour per quiz, especially those from new authors. A quiz with substantial problems can take an hour or more to edit. You will occasionally see a block of quizzes from one category go online in a short time, but those are almost always quizzes from experienced authors whose quizzes do just need a quick check, or resubmits (or re re re submits!) of quizzes that have already had a lot of time poured into them. If you only see one quiz from a category go online in a day, it does not necessarily mean that an editor popped into that category queue, put one quiz online in five minutes, and then left. It's a lot more likely that an hour or more was spent on that queue, but all that work only produced one publishable quiz.
Posted by: agony
Date: Apr 19 13
Today I'd like to talk about the editing process - how it works, and what to expect from it. If you have a vision of the editors in an office, diligently working away at quizzes from nine to five -- well, that's not even close to reality.
I'll start with something that most of you know -- the staff at FT are volunteers. This means, yes, that we are not paid, but a more meaningful way to look at this is that we work here in our spare time. A few staff are retirees, some are students, but most of us have jobs. Many of us have children. We have lawns that must be mowed, dogs that must be walked, and significant others who expect a significant portion of our attention and time. We slip our work here into odd moments of our lives, just as the authors and players do. Some of us only get here once a week or so; others are here every day, but often only for five or ten minutes at a time.
The quizzes that you see coming online are only a fraction of the work the editors do. A large number of quizzes edited don't make it online - nearly half of created quizzes never get online. The vast majority of Correction Notes are for quizzes whose authors no longer visit the site, which means the editors are taking care of them. This often involves considerable research and/or extensive rewriting. Subcategories are always being created, quizzes moved around. There are constant discussions going on about practices and policies - the site is always under refinement, always being tweaked to make it work better.
The actual editing is not usually a simple process of ticking off a list of problems-- bad spelling, check; time dependency, check; titles not in quotation marks, check-- but can be very time consuming. It's not unusual for an editor to take from fifteen minutes to half an hour per quiz, especially those from new authors. A quiz with substantial problems can take an hour or more to edit. You will occasionally see a block of quizzes from one category go online in a short time, but those are almost always quizzes from experienced authors whose quizzes do just need a quick check, or resubmits (or re re re submits!) of quizzes that have already had a lot of time poured into them. If you only see one quiz from a category go online in a day, it does not necessarily mean that an editor popped into that category queue, put one quiz online in five minutes, and then left. It's a lot more likely that an hour or more was spent on that queue, but all that work only produced one publishable quiz.
88 replies. On page 2 of 5 pages. 1 2 3 4 5
skunkee
|
The kind of note I really don't mind getting from an author is one that asks for clarification on a change that has been requested. I would much rather have someone ask to have something explained than have them resubmit a quiz without making the changes that were asked for. Reply #21. Apr 22 13, 8:40 AM |
tazman6619 
|
I would like to add a couple of thoughts from an experienced quizwriters perspective. When I first started the queues were annoying and sometimes I felt like editors were being nitpicky. As I have gained experience with both the process and the editors I have learned two very valuable lessons. First, editors clearly know what they are doing and their goal is not to be an impediment to getting your quiz online but to help you do it in the best possible way within the guidelines they must adhere to. It has been my experience that editors are more than willing to work with you. I recently had a quiz I thought was brilliant in movies but the editor pointed out some issues. I was a bit peeved at first but in the end they were right and my quiz needed to be fixed. Had it gone online as it was it would have been a disaster. Fortunately the editor did not let me go ahead with something that would have been a big problem no matter how brilliant I thought it was. Second, sometimes in the communication back and forth it can feel a bit cold. This is not because the editor has something against you. It is merely a fact of communicating by written word. Every editor I have worked with has been more than open to discussing things. It is wise to listen to their counsel and make adjusments accordingly without taking their advice personal. Reply #22. Apr 22 13, 10:14 AM |
adam36
|
A a non-editor these EDQ's are very helpful. I wish I didn't see so many of my own mistakes described in the general comments but it is instructional. Todays ephiphany came from reading swami's comments on "que checking". I see my tendency to "check in" on a quiz that has been submitted is not unique and very strong despite the negative consequences. Perhaps a 12 step program is in the future. I would add that I appreciate the editors as individuals, who to a person are some of the best writers and players on the site. I recognize the effort and appreciate the willingness to volunteer on my and the site's overall behalf. It would be disingenous to deny that I want my quizzes to be well received by these people. More so, if the psychic benefit as an author is the writing of a good quiz; and yes that includes validation by the community (Sunnies, lots of plays, Editor's Choice etc) having feedback from the most experienced and discerning FT members is an obvious goal. That being said it is also a natural tendency to see any editor as gate-keeper. This is not a criticism but simply a fact. Patience is a key but to be honest none of us would be here if we were exceedingly patient people by nature. Anyway back to que checking to see if my latest quiz has....augh. So for anyone keeping track I think it is back to step 3 for me.... Reply #23. Apr 22 13, 11:13 AM |
jmorrow
|
tazman is absolutely right about the nature of e-communications. It is all too easy to misinterpret a written message because of the inherent ambiguities with the medium and the difficulties in conveying nuances like tone or feeling. A business-like rejection note from an editor can be misconstrued as cold or impersonal, when the editor may just be trying to maintain a certain level of decorum. Similarly, an itemized list of corrections can come across as nitpicky or demanding, when the editor was just trying to be helpful or thorough. Such misunderstandings can be avoided once an author and editor have chalked up enough interactions to build up a rapport with each other, but that takes time and there are 30 editors on the site with no two having the exact same editing style. This is why communication is so crucial, and why so many people in this thread - editors as well as authors - have shared their tips on how to get the most out of the editor-author relationship. Two experienced authors have also brought up a very important point, which is not to take an editor's corrections or suggestions as some kind of personal affront. We are all human, so it is only natural to feel disheartened when faced with what may be perceived to be rejection or criticism. If this happens to you, don't take it personally. This can be hard for some authors - you have invested time and effort in writing your quiz, and rightfully have a sense of pride and authorship that comes with that. Just remember that the editors are only trying to apply the authoring guidelines consistently across all submissions. We also see a great deal of quiz submissions and deal with a great deal of correction notes from players, so we have a better sense of what works and what doesn't. This doesn't mean that the editing process is a one-way street. It is really a collaborative process, and you only get out of it as much as you put into it. If you don't understand something that an editor is telling you, seek clarification. If you don't agree with something an editor is saying, write back in a calm and level-headed manner and make your case. We are all reasonable people who are willing to hear you out. Reply #24. Apr 23 13, 11:39 AM |
agony
|
Another thing to think of, if you're torturing yourself about the wait and trying to figure out just exactly where you stand in the queue, is that not all editors edit strictly from the top down. Personally, the first thing I look for when going into the queue are resubmits that only needed minor changes. I'll look at those quizzes first. Then I'll go to the top of the queue and work there for a while. Then, while my mood is still good, I'll check out a few resubmissions where the initial submission was dreadful and I'm not expecting much on resub. Then, if I still have mental strength and courage, I'll dive into the Justin Beiber quiz that was initially submitted to Who's the Artist, with an intro that reads "try myqiz if your a fan!!!!!" that we've all been avoiding for a few days. Editors are only human after all. Reply #25. Apr 25 13, 10:30 AM |
LadyCaitriona
|
I almost always work on resubmits before starting on the new submissions from the top down. Assuming that the new quiz would also require resubmission (and I think we've said many times that MOST submissions are rejected on the first submission) I don't want the queue to fill up with resubmissions that are all waiting for me, specifically, to look at. Unless there is an extended absence or other reason that an editor might not be able to continue working with an author on a specific quiz, we don't have multiple editors working on the same author's submission. I don't like to start a new quiz that COULD be looked at by another editor while there are things to work on that need me specifically. Reply #26. Apr 25 13, 10:57 AM |
| jmorrow
|
I recently edited a Movies quiz and got a message from the author saying that he was expecting a much longer wait. The Movies queue had a lot of quizzes that day, so the rough queue sizes was probably reporting a wait of several days. What happened was this: When I got to the queue, all of the quizzes just happened to be resubmissions that were tagged for the other three editors in Movies, so there was only one quiz I could edit, and it happened to be the last quiz in the queue. This is yet another example of how the rough queue sizes are sometimes not indicative of the waiting time. I think most of the editors adopt the same approach described by agony and LadyC. All things being equal, we will try to tackle the quiz that is at the top of the queue, but there are so many other factors that could come into play. If I only have time for a quick editing job that day, and I have a choice between a 10-question quiz and a 15-question quiz, I might pick the 10-question quiz first, even if the 15-question quiz is ahead of it in the queue. Both quizzes may be from first-time authors and both may contain the same kind of newbie issues, but the shorter quiz is going to take less time to review and edit than the longer one. Reply #27. Apr 25 13, 8:28 PM |
gracious1
|
Forgive me if this was already asked and answered, but what are the criteria for tagging a particular quiz with a particular editor (other than a specific request from the author)? Reply #28. Apr 25 13, 8:56 PM |
| LadyCaitriona
|
Much like the Quiz Submission Notes to Editors, the editors have an internal system for leaving notes for each other on quizzes in the queue. Mostly we use them to put our names on quizzes that we're editing (the tagging that jmorrow was referring to), so when they are resubmitted other editors will know from the queue, without opening the quiz notes, that another editor has been working on it. Reply #29. Apr 25 13, 9:12 PM |
| agony
|
Some editors have specialties within their categories, so certain quizzes will usually be left for them - I seldom edit Music Theory quizzes, for example, because there are other editors better qualified than I on that subject. If an author has been discussing a certain quiz idea with an editor, that editor will usually edit the quiz. Beyond that, though, it is very much luck of the draw. Reply #30. Apr 25 13, 9:34 PM |
paulmallon
|
Hats off to you all...you don't get the credit you deserve, thank you for putting up with us quiz creators Reply #31. Apr 30 13, 7:24 PM |
beergirllaura
|
I have nothing but praise, appreciation and thanks for the editors. It seems to me that their sole reward is getting 'decent' quizzes online, and from what I've heard, their advice often leads to offended responses. Sometimes even hurtful and insulting responses. I think they deserve a huge and heartfelt thanks! Reply #32. Apr 30 13, 8:26 PM |
nannywoo
|
My experience has been wonderful. Some quizzes have surprised me by going online right away without any changes, but each time suggestions have been given by editors they greatly improved my work. I'm thinking of one where I had to completely rewrite three questions. On reflection, I could see the problems with them (my wordiness should have been a red flag) and I would have been embarrassed to see them online. Having a good, experienced reader give feedback really helps with focus. Reply #33. May 01 13, 2:46 AM |
zippolover
|
I have found it most illuminating reading through this thread, thank you all. I have one question though, Where does a quiz stand in the queue when the author has sanctions/warnings/restrictions against them? Reply #34. May 01 13, 4:25 AM |
Snowman
|
Kyle has already addressed this question in reply #8 But to give a succinct response, just like any quiz, a quiz from an author in such a position will have its place and like any other will be edited in due course. Trying to answer what that "due course" specifically means requires the input of so many variables (subject matter, editor's available time, what else is the queue, plus many others already mentioned in this thread) that it is impossible to answer. Reply #35. May 01 13, 6:15 AM |
kyleisalive
|
Zippo-- please review my post about priority vs. probation. If you have any specific questions I'm happy to help. I'm just not sure what more to say. :p Reply #36. May 01 13, 6:26 AM |
| zippolover
|
OK, I will quote Agony; ((... Personally, the first thing I look for when going into the queue are resubmits that only needed minor changes. I'll look at those quizzes first. Then I'll go to the top of the queue and work there for a while. Then, while my mood is still good, I'll check out a few resubmissions where the initial submission was dreadful and I'm not expecting much on resub. Then, if I still have mental strength and courage, I'll dive into the Justin Beiber quiz that was initially submitted to Who's the Artist, with an intro that reads "try myqiz if your a fan!!!!!" that we've all been avoiding for a few days. Editors are only human after all.)) My question is - where in this list is someone with a Sanction? The note advising of a sanction states that future quizzes will have a lower priority. Agony only mentions easy resubmissions, then top of the list, then difficuly resummissions and FINALLY the Justin Beiber type quiz. If the position is lower than the Justin Beiber quiz.... Reply #37. May 01 13, 9:17 AM |
| kyleisalive
|
In response to that, it varies from editor to editor. As Snowman and I have both said in our postings, there are too many factors with submissions in the queue and each individual quiz submitted, to give a definitive answer on where a quiz by *any* author stands. If you're on 'probation', it means we take more time to look over the quiz; it does not necessarily mean your quiz is sitting in the queue for a longer amount of time-- an editor, knowing the issues, can swoop in and tackle it first if they have reason to. Alternatively, they could tackle it last because they know it will take them the longest to dissect. Alternatively, they could just go from top to bottom on the list, as is usually the case. I can't really say. A 'probation' author may submit a quiz that's better than a prolific author and vice versa. Each quiz is its own submission. We do, however, base our system on experiences we have with the author, good or bad, and it changes depending. Plagiarism, as has been discussed until the horse has been beaten dead, is an indicator that we need to check thoroughly, even if the next nine or seventeen or however many quizzes are error-free. Reply #38. May 01 13, 9:26 AM |
| zippolover
|
Thank you :) Reply #39. May 01 13, 9:36 AM |
| agony
|
Looking at this from the viewpoint of that post of mine, the quiz will rise to the top of the queue, and be edited from there. How long it will take to get there is impossible to tell, because there are simply too many factors. If every editor in the category is around and doing a lot of editing, quizzes get to the top very quickly. If there's only one editor, and submissions are difficult and time consuming, it can take a long time to get to any one specific quiz. Reply #40. May 01 13, 11:06 AM |
88 replies. On page 2 of 5 pages. 1 2 3 4 5
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: