It's not based on number of quizzes, but on the author/editor relationship. And any author who has ten quizzes in the queues at a time is going to have quizzes deliberately held back by editors - we don't like bombing the front page.

Although it is amusing when you see two of your quizzes, one after the other, in the new quiz list.

It is often said that those authors that consistently submit error-riddled, grammatically incorrect and inaccurate quizzes are usually pushed to the back of the queue, so I have a question for the editors:

Are there any of you that particularly specialise in dealing with this type of quiz? Do any of you enjoy, even prefer, to deal with these kinds of quizzes?

I would imagine that it could be very rewarding to take a poor product, work in depth with the author over time, and turn it into a quiz to be proud of!

For me it's not a matter of preference but a matter of time. If I only have 10 or 15 minutes to spare for editing, I'm not going to jump into a task that will likely take more time than that to write a helpful, detailed note. I often edit from work on my lunch break, so I really do have a deadline for when I need to stop editing and move on to other things.

Yes, it is rewarding when it happens, but unfortunately it often doesn't work out that way.

A willing author who just needs a little instruction and encouragement, who wants to write a good quiz but just doesn't know how - those authors seldom stay long in the "back of the queue" group. We know what effort looks like, and we want to encourage it. It's not really all that hard to write a quiz if an author is motivated - once our requirements are understood, it's just a question of doing it. It's a lot of work, but it's not *hard*. Those authors realize fairly quickly that we really mean it when we say we want the spelling and punctuation to be correct, they figure out how to do research, they start to grasp some of the more difficult concepts like time dependency, and before too long they are writing good quizzes.

The authors who go to the back of the queue on any kind of a consistent basis are those who pay no attention to instructions and guidelines. Who, when given a list of five changes needed to the quiz, make a half hearted attempt to do two of them, for the first three or four questions, and then resubmit. After five or six rounds of that, depending on the soft-heartedness of the editor, the quiz is either deleted, or the editor cleans it up and puts it online. These authors are not interested in learning, and once they fully realize how much work will be expected of them, they leave the site.

The first group are indeed rewarding, and I'd say that all editors enjoy working with them, once they see that progress is being made. The second group is not rewarding at all.

As Lady C said, time is very much a factor, too. Do I take half an hour once a week for six weeks to work on a quiz that won't really be very good even if it does make it online, or do I devote that time to good authors, and to authors who could be good with a little help? It's also depressing to work with people who don't want to work with you - most of us can only take a little of that at a time.

So I guess the answer to your question is yes and no.

So is that where newbie Editors get their start?

There's no better place to start regular editors than in the regular queues. Might as well show them what to expect from the get-go.

As the 'newbie-est' editor here, I have to agree. If I'd started out on single questions, a whole quiz would have then been daunting. Might as well face it head on and tackle it. Not that I think I'm anywhere near conquering all the intricacies of editing and FT in general, but after 16 months I don't feel like I'm in the weeds and over my head any more!

Wow, 16 months. I can't believe it's been that long. It seems like just yesterday I sent a congratulatory "you became an editor" note. :P

I still feel like a newbie after four years!

Somewhere along the way this thread's title was changed. The Re:'s are still to the originator rather than the prior poster.

It's been that way for at least a decade.

I believe it depends whether you write in the Quick Reply box (as I am) or by clicking Reply after a person's post? In any case, it's pretty unimportant.

fwiw they're now all identical

There are posts from 12+ years ago in this thread (aka before I was ever a member here - which was 12 years ago this month). Why did it matter what the thread title and all the responses match? The rest of us understood what the gist of this thread was.

It took time for gtho4 to change all those, and it really wasn't warranted.

If you click "Quote" you get the person you responded to? [Checking] Yup, you do.

There was the option to separate the two threads and leave the recent part with its title. I only pointed out the situation. I didn't demand any changes be made or people's time be wasted. The Re: is agreeably seldom of importance except when people post to the same third person at the same time. Many blogs are architecturally like a tree so you can flow back through streams of discussion. When only the first post is referenced all we know is what root our tree has grown from.

PS Sorry to gtho4 for the extra work but thank you for it too.

If you want to reference a specific post, you need to reply to it, not just fill in the Quick Reply box. That is a matter of protocol for posters, most of whom don't seem to care much.

Pre-Apocalyptic Post Apathy?

No, more a case of not letting my knickers get in a twist about things that aren't worth losing sleep over. I never read who is addressing whom. I simply read the posts and follow it all that way.

Ditto-- if someone's replying directly, the post will be right after it or it will contain a quote.

Or will say something such as "Kyle, I agree with your post at 10:15"

To be fair the Re: thing seems to have changed recently. I ONLY use the Quick reply and it definitely used say Re: (previous poster) instead of Re: (original poster). I don't usually pay much attention to it either but it's quite apparent in the Chain Games threads where there are often muliptle simultaneous posts.

I agree, GG. I am using the quick reply now.

Usually, it uses the most recent poster for the Re:, and I know if someone posted simultaneously because it will be different than the one I'm replying to.


However, as you stated, the quick reply is using the original poster.

I don't know what changed, but it is definitely recent. I have always used quick reply. I actually, to be truthful, didn't realize there was an actual "reply" button. :P

Who is the editor in charge of Television entries?