A new question about groups (Page 2 of 2)

How are we coming with the chapter reordering glitch?

when done correctly there is no better or more helpful review than the inline review.  Anyone taking the time to leave a proper inline review is, for me, worth their weight in gold.  Perhaps Charles Bell has neither been the recipient or author of a proper inline review.

Mariana Reuter wrote:

Norm:

You need to keep something under the sleeve or else nobody would be interested in becoming a premium member. What should be done is that, in a piece of work is published by a non-premium writer, inline reviews must be blocked for such piece.

However, the benefit of the inline review belongs  to the reviewer (premium) and not so much to the one being reviewed (free) and yet the premium will have wasted his time if the free cannot read the review or the premium has to resort to a regular review though he may not want to -- the inline review being a kind of a cheap quasi-review, except on grammar and punctuation.

charles_bell wrote:

pamelablack62 wrote:

when done correctly there is no better or more helpful review than the inline review.  Anyone taking the time to leave a proper inline review is, for me, worth their weight in gold.  Perhaps Charles Bell has neither been the recipient or author of a proper inline review.

I was both writer and recipient as free and premium member of inline reviews, and I likewise with the original poster think it is strange to have the ability for a premium member to fruitlessly write one to a free member, for then not only is the free-member recipient made to suffer through cripple-ware but so is the paying premium member. Either way, the inline review encourages proofreading and not genuine substantive analysis and review, but few do, if anybody does, that here.

I agree, there should be a warning because I left a couple of reviews for non-paying authors, all inline as that is the only kind of review I do, so I was feeling frustrated to have taken my time and not hear back from the authors, especially the rougher drafts which took me a really long time.  My attitude was, 'well I will never review them again if they can't/won't acknowledge my efforts,' so good to now know why.

I will no longer take the time to review non-paying members.  I will also avoid leaving you my useless inline reviews should you become a paying member.  Any author who publicly states ANY review is useless or worthless will never receive a review from me.  I find that mentality arrogant and insulting.

pamelablack62 wrote:

charles_bell wrote:

I was both writer and recipient as free and premium member of inline reviews, and I likewise with the original poster think it is strange to have the ability for a premium member to fruitlessly write one to a free member, for then not only is the free-member recipient made to suffer through cripple-ware but so is the paying premium member. Either way, the inline review encourages proofreading and not genuine substantive analysis and review, but few do, if anybody does, that here.

I agree, there should be a warning because I left a couple of reviews for non-paying authors, all inline as that is the only kind of review I do, so I was feeling frustrated to have taken my time and not hear back from the authors, especially the rougher drafts which took me a really long time.  My attitude was, 'well I will never review them again if they can't/won't acknowledge my efforts,' so good to now know why.

I will no longer take the time to review non-paying members.  I will also avoid leaving you my useless inline reviews should you become a paying member.  Any author who publicly states ANY review is useless or worthless will never receive a review from me.  I find that mentality arrogant and insulting.

I didn't say they were useless I just said that they are far more of a benefit to the reviewer than to a writer in most circumstances.  What is the difference to the writer if the sum total of commentary is "Here (inline cite) you say 'she is tall' but there you say 'she is 5 foot 8'" and to say the same thing without an inline cite unless the writer has a bad memory of his own work?  The reviewer is spared sometimes the bother of cut-and-paste, but again if the writer has a decent memory of his own work, that is of marginal benefit to him.  I also think your attitude of stomping your foot down and declaring an edict that "if you don't play by my rules, I won't play!" is not a good attitude.

charles_bell wrote:

pamelablack62 wrote:

I agree, there should be a warning because I left a couple of reviews for non-paying authors, all inline as that is the only kind of review I do, so I was feeling frustrated to have taken my time and not hear back from the authors, especially the rougher drafts which took me a really long time.  My attitude was, 'well I will never review them again if they can't/won't acknowledge my efforts,' so good to now know why.

I will no longer take the time to review non-paying members.  I will also avoid leaving you my useless inline reviews should you become a paying member.  Any author who publicly states ANY review is useless or worthless will never receive a review from me.  I find that mentality arrogant and insulting.

I didn't say they were useless I just said that they are far more of a benefit to the reviewer than to a writer in most circumstances.  What is the difference to the writer if the sum total of commentary is "Here (inline cite) you say 'she is tall' but there you say 'she is 5 foot 8'" and to say the same thing without an inline cite unless the writer has a bad memory of his own work?  The reviewer is spared sometimes the bother of cut-and-paste, but again if the writer has a decent memory of his own work, that is of marginal benefit to him.  I also think your attitude of stomping your foot down and declaring an edict that "if you don't play by my rules, I won't play!" is not a good attitude.

You are right, you did not directly use the word useless.  What you said, in various forms and fashions was " Either way, the inline review encourages proofreading and not genuine substantive analysis and review, but few do, if anybody does, that here."  The implied meaning is not only do you find inline reviews useless you find ALL reviews from this site, if not useless, at least lacking. 

Thanks for the input on my attitude towards those who do not appreciate my efforts to help but I'll pass on taking etiquette advice from the fellow who just told the entire group he thinks himself above them and the time they have given to him in the form of reviews unhelpful.

Please!  If I like Cadillacs and you think they're junk, if you drive a Lexus and I woildn't take one if you paid me, it doesn't mean that we each think the other is only worth his worthless taste in cars.

There are people like that, of course.  The polite word for them is 'fanatics'.  But I'm pretty sure none of us want to be that way, and just about as sure that none of us is that way.

And yet flamewars occur between good people, because we read first slants and then slights, where none was intended.  And we feel the need to correct things that we would tolerate, would not even notice, were we not deeply invested in the debate--that was never meant to be a debate.

FWIW, I started in online forums in 1981.  I've seen these, and yes, been guilty of them.

I'm sorry if I am irritating or offending you.  I am finished with this argument.  It has become an exercise in futility at this point and has turned ugly and personal so a total waste of time.  Again, I apologize for the irritation.