Apologies, please read my other responses for what will hopefully be some explanation of my strong criticism last night...! Much of what I said WAS designed to provoke a reaction, but by no means was it intended to belittle the efforts of the Times team.
I have to admit I got a wee bit annoyed by that, considering I had revised that article three times on my own, followed by two other revisions by two other people. We work hard to write these articles, and honestly, comments like that don't encourage us.
The second article is similarly littered with schoolboy errors that make an otherwise interesting new topic frustrating to read.
Sorry I'm not an English major and that I don't get out the Bedford Handbook every time I write an article.
Forgiven. Although thanks to you, I have something to write about next month lol. So thanks. XD
Hah, I'll look forward to reading that one then (I think!
And there's nothing wrong with that. After all, from the reader's perspective, there's no difference. We just see published articles with a lower standard of quality than the other websites we look at. Why should we adopt a double standard?
If one reads to quickly over your comment, it looks like the ironical "from professional authors" is aimed at the editorial panel. I misunderstood it at first too.
On the contrary I know that the people who do these articles are not professional authors but do this type of thing because they love what they do. My point was that some are judging them as if they were.
Agreed. Let us not also forget that despite the efforts of Racheya and other forum admins to tell us otherwise, the language of an article is inherent to its ability to communicate with the reader. If the language is faulty in any way, it denigrates the content of the article and rightly deserves to be highlighted as a notable point. Not saying flaming is acceptable, but some level of criticism for flaws should be expected.
So I think this entire situation is getting stale. Every week these topics turn into some big flame war which takes away from the actual discussion that should be had here: the content of the articles this week.
Effective immediately, the following policy is put into place on Times Discussion topics.
Rampant flame wars have taken control of virtually every week's times discussion topics. The following guidelines must be followed when posting on this topic. Posts that ignore these guidelines will be removed.
1. You are invited and welcome to express like or dislike on articles and a particular author's writing style. It is not acceptable, however, to flame or personally insult an author. Posts that aren't anything but an attack will be removed from the topic.
2. Spelling and grammar errors can be reported to Racheya by PMing her and they will be fixed promptly. It is not necessary to post them on the discussion topic.
3. Off topic posts that do not discuss the content of that week's articles will be removed. This is not the place to discuss the direction of the times, how much you love or hate the times, etc. Off topic posts will be removed.
By keeping within these guidelines, Times discussion topics will mean more for the Panel and Administration than just a place for flame wars. Flame wars do not provide any useful feedback to the Times, which is mainly what we're aiming for with these topics: feedback.
This policy is effective as of this post, November 17, 2010. Any posts prior to the creation of this policy may or may not be removed according to the new guidelines.
Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.
Not that I'm particularly questioning your logic, as I agree that pointless flame/spam/insult-fests are a pointless nuisance. I'm just curious as to why it has been deemed necessary to call out the Stasi on this, one of the more polite (and least read) feedback threads I've seen in a long time?
In the case of this week's articles, there wasn't really a great deal to discuss, but I would disagree with anyone who claims that this week's thread is a degenerate flame-war.