This is from another TE

Tired of TE douchebaggery? Here ya go.

Moderator: Britney Spears

This is from another TE

Postby mostprobablies » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:27 am

I laughed.

I'm wondering if some Topic Editors are trying to discourage people from writing in their sections! After 398 articles on Suite, I have just had one disabled. The reason? It only had one reference and the topic editor wanted more than one. Nothing wrong with the spelling, grammar, structure etc. I think it is ridiculous to disable something on this basis. I had it linked to Twitter, Facebook and Stumbleupon and it had 120 views in the first few hours. Now the links lead nowhere. Will I ever write in that section again? Not a chance!
mostprobablies
Site Admin
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:33 pm

Re: This is from another TE

Postby hopeful » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:51 am

OMG! I would have been pissed too. 398 articles and some simpleton with probably only 30 articles thought it OK to disable due to only one reference? LMAO
Suite101.com ~ Everything you never wanted to know :P
hopeful
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: This is from another TE

Postby mostprobablies » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:06 am

TE power tripper. The TE could have just flagged it. When a TE disables an article like that, it's bullshit. Writer loses money and fucks up their rank, if the article is offline for too long. Dumbass TE IMO

ETA: Donald just suggested that TEs can only flag. I think that's a much better idea, so these power tripping douchebags can't fuck up a writer's income.
mostprobablies
Site Admin
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:33 pm

Re: This is from another TE

Postby BoredWriter » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:07 am

I think some people are on a personal crusade, and forget that Suite101 is not their own personal site where they can demand from writers anything they want. I hope that TE is either removed or talked to seriously.
BoredWriter
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:46 am

Re: This is from another TE

Postby I'm Done » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:21 am

Brent chimed in on that thread and said ...

Just want to emphasis a point here - it's important for all writers to understand the TE is the first step in the editorial ladder, not the last step. The last thing we want is for writers to stop writing in certain Topics becasue of a conflict with the TE - a conflict that can most likely be resolved with some mediation from the Senior Editor.

As Janis and others mention above, TEs are just coming on board and getting a handle on how we apply the guidelines from an editorial point of view, and mistakes are going to be made. Right here in this thread, based on reported comments from writers and responses from TEs I see a couple problems that need to be corrected.

But the Senior Editors can't correct the problems unless we know about them. This is particularly important when it comes to disagreements over disabled articles. We go through and review articles that the TEs have looked at, and we can see what kind of Notes they have been issuing. But when it comes to disabling, all we have is a list that indicates the TE has disabled X-number of articles. We have no way to access those articles and see what the problem was or what specific feedback the writer was given.

So, as writers, you need to let us know. And this isn't a "going over their head" situation. It's supposed to be a cooperative process, not a confrontational one. Sometimes we may lean toward the TE's point of view, sometimes we're going to agree with the writer, sometimes, hopefully most often, we're going to find a middle ground. But one way or the other, getting involved in these kind of situations is the Senior Editors' job.

So please keep that in mind going forward.

Problem #1: I keep reading that TEs are new to the process and getting a handle on how to apply guidelines. However, I also keep reading that the guidelines are not very detailed and a work in progress. In business, when you implement something in a half-assed fashion, you're gonna get your ass handed to you. Aside from our usual questions surrounding the TE position, Suite never should have created those positions without having a thorough job description and detailed guidelines available. There's a lot of confused people out there because they didn't do that.

Problem #2: The way it seems to be working right now, many TEs are nothing more than an additional headache for writers. I understand what Brent is saying, but if I continuously have issues with a particular TE, why would I continue to bash my head against that wall? It's not worth the few pennies I would earn for having articles up in their section. Besides, if the TE is a pain in my ass, why would I want to put 50 cents in their pocket?
I'm Done
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:04 pm

Re: This is from another TE

Postby DSAldridge » Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:06 am

TE's are NOT supposed to disable articles at all, from what I was told, unless they are just pure crap. We were only supposed to send "suggestions" and we could not enforce them. This is just a TE who didn't know the rules, is all, nothing nefarious here I don't think.
DSAldridge
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:43 pm

Re: This is from another TE

Postby mostprobablies » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:39 pm

Disabling for only having one reference is bullshit, and the TE should be reprimanded. That writer lost money because someone is a noob asshat.
mostprobablies
Site Admin
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:33 pm

Re: This is from another TE

Postby I'm Done » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:37 pm

DSAldridge wrote:TE's are NOT supposed to disable articles at all, from what I was told, unless they are just pure crap. We were only supposed to send "suggestions" and we could not enforce them. This is just a TE who didn't know the rules, is all, nothing nefarious here I don't think.

That's not a justifiable excuse. If someone accepts the responsibility of a new position (e.g. TE), they are accountable to know and understand all the rules associated with that position. Think about it - if I fuck up at a job because I didn't bother to learn the rules of my position, I could get fired. I'm certainly not going to get any sympathy from the employer if I didn't take the time to learn the appropriate rules for my position.

Even if the TE doesn't have access to the rules, it's still not an acceptable excuse. The only difference is that the responsibility shifts from the TE to TPTB. In this case, the TE positions never should have been implemented without providing the new TEs with a proper set of rules/guidelines.

Either way, the writer shouldn't have to deal with this kind of bullshit. It's completely unacceptable, especially when the TE may make more money off that article (50 cents) than the writer (pennies).
I'm Done
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:04 pm

Re: This is from another TE

Postby mostprobablies » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:30 pm

TEs are too busy wondering what to charge another TE to edit if they are gone for a few days. :lol:

Priorities, FFS.
mostprobablies
Site Admin
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:33 pm

Re: This is from another TE

Postby I'm Done » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:02 pm

mostprobablies wrote:TEs are too busy wondering what to charge another TE to edit if they are gone for a few days. :lol:

Priorities, FFS.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm Done
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:04 pm


Return to TEs - Give them hell

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron