I think editors can be categorized according to their proficiency. i.e. An editor who knows well of general articles may not be well proficient in correcting IT articles. Same is the case of other subjects also. The problem is......one editor should be able to correct written errors also, not only grammatical errors. An editor, if doesn't have any idea of the subject may not be able to notice even simple errors.

I think editors can be categorized according to their proficiency. i.e. An editor who knows well of general articles may not be well proficient in correcting IT articles. Same is the case of other subjects also. The problem is......one editor should be able to correct written errors also, not only grammatical errors. An editor, if doesn't have any idea of the subject may not be able to notice even simple errors.

I do agree, every one does not understand every subject. One who knows finance may not know or dislike house keeping or computers related. Therefore articles should go to an editor who knows her/his subject well. This is not grammar or language specific but subject as well.

I think editors can be categorized according to their proficiency. i.e. An editor who knows well of general articles may not be well proficient in correcting IT articles. Same is the case of other subjects also. The problem is......one editor should be able to correct written errors also, not only grammatical errors. An editor, if doesn't have any idea of the subject may not be able to notice even simple errors.

I do agree, every one does not understand every subject. One who knows finance may not know or dislike house keeping or computers related. Therefore articles should go to an editor who knows her/his subject well. This is not grammar or language specific but subject as well.

I think editors can be categorized according to their proficiency. i.e. An editor who knows well of general articles may not be well proficient in correcting IT articles. Same is the case of other subjects also. The problem is......one editor should be able to correct written errors also, not only grammatical errors. An editor, if doesn't have any idea of the subject may not be able to notice even simple errors.

I do agree, every one does not understand every subject. One who knows finance may not know or dislike house keeping or computers related. Therefore articles should go to an editor who knows her/his subject well. This is not grammar or language specific but subject as well.

The suggestion is okay. But it is impractical to find editors knowing all the topics. An editor is not concerned very much with accuracy of facts in the article. The article is of author. The editor is only responsible to see that Boddunan rules are complied with, there is no copying from other sources, there is proper language and formatting. An editor may also correct obvious factual mistakes and grammar. I remember that in my article, editor corrected spelling of a social activist and also gave remark.

I think editors can be categorized according to their proficiency. i.e. An editor who knows well of general articles may not be well proficient in correcting IT articles. Same is the case of other subjects also. The problem is......one editor should be able to correct written errors also, not only grammatical errors. An editor, if doesn't have any idea of the subject may not be able to notice even simple errors.

I do agree, every one does not understand every subject. One who knows finance may not know or dislike house keeping or computers related. Therefore articles should go to an editor who knows her/his subject well. This is not grammar or language specific but subject as well.

The suggestion is okay. But it is impractical to find editors knowing all the topics. An editor is not concerned very much with accuracy of facts in the article. The article is of author. The editor is only responsible to see that Boddunan rules are complied with, there is no copying from other sources, there is proper language and formatting. An editor may also correct obvious factual mistakes and grammar. I remember that in my article, editor corrected spelling of a social activist and also gave remark.

Now that the admin said that in future editors would be responsible for suggesting cash credit on articles, this has become more relevant. There are sites, which are managed manually have their panel consisting of editors who know their subjects.

I think editors can be categorized according to their proficiency. i.e. An editor who knows well of general articles may not be well proficient in correcting IT articles. Same is the case of other subjects also. The problem is......one editor should be able to correct written errors also, not only grammatical errors. An editor, if doesn't have any idea of the subject may not be able to notice even simple errors.

I do agree, every one does not understand every subject. One who knows finance may not know or dislike house keeping or computers related. Therefore articles should go to an editor who knows her/his subject well. This is not grammar or language specific but subject as well.

The suggestion is okay. But it is impractical to find editors knowing all the topics. An editor is not concerned very much with accuracy of facts in the article. The article is of author. The editor is only responsible to see that Boddunan rules are complied with, there is no copying from other sources, there is proper language and formatting. An editor may also correct obvious factual mistakes and grammar. I remember that in my article, editor corrected spelling of a social activist and also gave remark.

Now that the admin said that in future editors would be responsible for suggesting cash credit on articles, this has become more relevant. There are sites, which are managed manually have their panel consisting of editors who know their subjects.

I agree with your view points. But then we need many editors. If management can do so, this is welcome. Also we need editors for Hindi and Telugu. These language editors will also have to be proficient in various topics. Thus, we may need more than twenty editors covering all subjects and also languages Hindi and Telugu.

I think editors can be categorized according to their proficiency. i.e. An editor who knows well of general articles may not be well proficient in correcting IT articles. Same is the case of other subjects also. The problem is......one editor should be able to correct written errors also, not only grammatical errors. An editor, if doesn't have any idea of the subject may not be able to notice even simple errors.

I do agree, every one does not understand every subject. One who knows finance may not know or dislike house keeping or computers related. Therefore articles should go to an editor who knows her/his subject well. This is not grammar or language specific but subject as well.

The suggestion is okay. But it is impractical to find editors knowing all the topics. An editor is not concerned very much with accuracy of facts in the article. The article is of author. The editor is only responsible to see that Boddunan rules are complied with, there is no copying from other sources, there is proper language and formatting. An editor may also correct obvious factual mistakes and grammar. I remember that in my article, editor corrected spelling of a social activist and also gave remark.

Now that the admin said that in future editors would be responsible for suggesting cash credit on articles, this has become more relevant. There are sites, which are managed manually have their panel consisting of editors who know their subjects.

I agree with your view points. But then we need many editors. If management can do so, this is welcome. Also we need editors for Hindi and Telugu. These language editors will also have to be proficient in various topics. Thus, we may need more than twenty editors covering all subjects and also languages Hindi and Telugu.

also, cash credits should never be based on the total number words...but content. Also, if it's properly presented with good format.
If an editor has the idea of the written article, he can value its importance well. It helps in getting more cash credits to the writers.
Here, at present, I feel, stress is mainly on the word length than its real importance and content :dry:

I think editors can be categorized according to their proficiency. i.e. An editor who knows well of general articles may not be well proficient in correcting IT articles. Same is the case of other subjects also. The problem is......one editor should be able to correct written errors also, not only grammatical errors. An editor, if doesn't have any idea of the subject may not be able to notice even simple errors.

I do agree, every one does not understand every subject. One who knows finance may not know or dislike house keeping or computers related. Therefore articles should go to an editor who knows her/his subject well. This is not grammar or language specific but subject as well.

The suggestion is okay. But it is impractical to find editors knowing all the topics. An editor is not concerned very much with accuracy of facts in the article. The article is of author. The editor is only responsible to see that Boddunan rules are complied with, there is no copying from other sources, there is proper language and formatting. An editor may also correct obvious factual mistakes and grammar. I remember that in my article, editor corrected spelling of a social activist and also gave remark.

Now that the admin said that in future editors would be responsible for suggesting cash credit on articles, this has become more relevant. There are sites, which are managed manually have their panel consisting of editors who know their subjects.

I agree with your view points. But then we need many editors. If management can do so, this is welcome. Also we need editors for Hindi and Telugu. These language editors will also have to be proficient in various topics. Thus, we may need more than twenty editors covering all subjects and also languages Hindi and Telugu.

also, cash credits should never be based on the total number words...but content. Also, if it's properly presented with good format.
If an editor has the idea of the written article, he can value its importance well. It helps in getting more cash credits to the writers.
Here, at present, I feel, stress is mainly on the word length than its real importance and content :dry:

I believe that the logical way to remunerate the authors is by linking this to revenue. The contribution made by author to revenue of the site would be most logical. But this will require complete change over. The sites earns revenue from advertisements. So, number of clicks on advertisements placed on the articles and revenue received from advertiser would form basis. Here quality of article is not so significant as the revenue that could be realized. Thus an article on beauty care may fetch more revenue as compared to one on Fundamental scientific research. The products like shampoo, hair oil would add to revenue of site. I feel that the site may be assessing probable revenue from article while assigning cash points.

I think editors can be categorized according to their proficiency. i.e. An editor who knows well of general articles may not be well proficient in correcting IT articles. Same is the case of other subjects also. The problem is......one editor should be able to correct written errors also, not only grammatical errors. An editor, if doesn't have any idea of the subject may not be able to notice even simple errors.

I do agree, every one does not understand every subject. One who knows finance may not know or dislike house keeping or computers related. Therefore articles should go to an editor who knows her/his subject well. This is not grammar or language specific but subject as well.

The suggestion is okay. But it is impractical to find editors knowing all the topics. An editor is not concerned very much with accuracy of facts in the article. The article is of author. The editor is only responsible to see that Boddunan rules are complied with, there is no copying from other sources, there is proper language and formatting. An editor may also correct obvious factual mistakes and grammar. I remember that in my article, editor corrected spelling of a social activist and also gave remark.

Now that the admin said that in future editors would be responsible for suggesting cash credit on articles, this has become more relevant. There are sites, which are managed manually have their panel consisting of editors who know their subjects.

I agree with your view points. But then we need many editors. If management can do so, this is welcome. Also we need editors for Hindi and Telugu. These language editors will also have to be proficient in various topics. Thus, we may need more than twenty editors covering all subjects and also languages Hindi and Telugu.

also, cash credits should never be based on the total number words...but content. Also, if it's properly presented with good format.
If an editor has the idea of the written article, he can value its importance well. It helps in getting more cash credits to the writers.
Here, at present, I feel, stress is mainly on the word length than its real importance and content :dry:

I believe that the logical way to remunerate the authors is by linking this to revenue. The contribution made by author to revenue of the site would be most logical. But this will require complete change over. The sites earns revenue from advertisements. So, number of clicks on advertisements placed on the articles and revenue received from advertiser would form basis. Here quality of article is not so significant as the revenue that could be realized. Thus an article on beauty care may fetch more revenue as compared to one on Fundamental scientific research. The products like shampoo, hair oil would add to revenue of site. I feel that the site may be assessing probable revenue from article while assigning cash points.

Your idea is nice. But it will be misused if more clicks can bring the author more revenue.
I think this idea was suggested by many members here before also.