-- Posted by Tavis at 5:42 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 So, I think it would be cool if we were to have a way that even though you submit a response, someone should read it over. It would be another SL of course, and then if they feel that there are no mistakes that the SL didn't pick up on, they can give it a thumbs up, and it's allowed. It would only take one, but they would have to agree that they proof read it with a bit of effort. And if there are errors, pm the SL, and they can then edit it. This way, we are cleaner even that little bit for our replies, and we are learning from mistakes and learning how to proof read others' works. -- Posted by Wolf at 5:43 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Only if it was optional. -- Posted by Tavis at 5:44 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Quote: from wolverineh8ter at 8:43 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Only if it was optional. Optional to have it proof read or to proof read anothers'? -- Posted by marshmellowman at 5:46 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 I don't like the idea, mostly because it's my reply, and why the hell should another SL have to give a thumbs up to my reply? They may not agree with what I say, but that doesn't mean that my advice isn't helpful or constructive. Our replies shouldn't need to be peer reviewed, and while I can see the potential benefits, it just delays the OP getting their reply - especially if there are few SLs on and no-one is 'approving them', or if the SL that made the reply goes offline. We learn through our replies anyway, and mistakes are inevitable. There's no need to set up a convoluted and unnecessary system to address such a trivial problem. -- Posted by Tavis at 5:49 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:46 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 I don't like the idea, mostly because it's my reply, and why the hell should another SL have to give a thumbs up to my reply? They may not agree with what I say, but that doesn't mean that my advice isn't helpful or constructive. Our replies shouldn't need to be peer reviewed, and while I can see the potential benefits, it just delays the OP getting their reply - especially if there are few SLs on and no-one is 'approving them', or if the SL that made the reply goes offline. We learn through our replies anyway, and mistakes are inevitable. There's no need to set up a convoluted and unnecessary system to address such a trivial problem. They can't make you not add it. They can pm you so you can fix grammatical or spelling errors only. The disadvantage would the the delay, but I don't think it would take very long to look it over. A good number of us are on a good amount of the time, and although might not have the emotions to reply, might have the time to read over what another put. Everyone learns different. I find people have to correct me to figure things like that out. -- Posted by holysaiyan1 at 5:53 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Hmmm, I'm not sure.   Although giving us the ability to preview what we're written in eHelp would be nice.  I hate it when a set of nested tags is wrong in one place, and the whole bunch is taken out, because of the one bad tag.   -- Posted by marshmellowman at 5:59 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 1:49 am on Jan. 7, 2009 They can't make you not add it. They can pm you so you can fix grammatical or spelling errors only. Do you mean someone needs to have a look at it (and mark it as proof read) before they can add it. But it is up to the SL that proof read it to PM the member if they have a suggestion or have found mistakes. Are they supposed to approve it even if they've found mistakes? and then PM the SL? The disadvantage would the the delay, but I don't think it would take very long to look it over. A good number of us are on a good amount of the time, and although might not have the emotions to reply, might have the time to read over what another put. Yeah, it sounds simple, but that doesn't mean members will check the eHelp system (and how will we know there's something to look over) or bother to approve replies. Sometimes there can be very few SLs on and may not pay attention. An actual test implementation of this would probably determine how viable it is, but I think the extra time is just unneeded. Everyone learns different. I find people have to correct me to figure things like that out. Fair enough, but as you said, everyone is different. This may help you a lot, but other SLs might just get really pissed off with it. Having it optionally selectable by the SL adding the reply (so a tickbox asking it to be reviewed) like Shaun said seems far more reasonable than forcing every SL to do it. -- Posted by Tavis at 6:03 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:59 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 1:49 am on Jan. 7, 2009 Do you mean someone needs to have a look at it (and mark it as proof read) before they can add it. But it is up to the SL that proof read it to PM the member if they have a suggestion or have found mistakes. Are they supposed to approve it even if they've found mistakes? and then PM the SL? Yeah, it sounds simple, but that doesn't mean members will check the eHelp system (and how will we know there's something to look over) or bother to approve replies. Sometimes there can be very few SLs on and may not pay attention. An actual test implementation of this would probably determine how viable it is, but I think the extra time is just unneeded. Fair enough, but as you said, everyone is different. This may help you a lot, but other SLs might just get really pissed off with it. Having it optionally selectable by the SL adding the reply (so a tickbox asking it to be reviewed) like Shaun said seems far more reasonable than forcing every SL to do it. Yes, I do mean almost exactly that, up until what to do if they found mistakes. Then, you mark it as "Error found", pm them, and once it's fixed, you mark it as proof read. It would be optional, for sure. I for sure would use it, but you would not. I find that a perfect eHelp that is 10 minutes late is better then one with a few mistakes right when you write it. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 6:11 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 2:03 am on Jan. 7, 2009 Yes, I do mean almost exactly that, up until what to do if they found mistakes. Then, you mark it as "Error found", pm them, and once it's fixed, you mark it as proof read. It would be optional, for sure. I for sure would use it, but you would not. I find that a perfect eHelp that is 10 minutes late is better then one with a few mistakes right when you write it. Oh, ok, that makes far more sense. There should be a form though to PM the SL of the reply if you mark it as error found to speed up the process. In that case, then yes, for those that would use this I can definitely see it being beneficial. I'd definitely be for this, though I'm still unsure about the time it'd take for it to be 'approved' especially since some replies can be quite long. -- Posted by Tavis at 6:16 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:11 pm on Jan. 6, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 2:03 am on Jan. 7, 2009 Yes, I do mean almost exactly that, up until what to do if they found mistakes. Then, you mark it as "Error found", pm them, and once it's fixed, you mark it as proof read.  It would be optional, for sure. I for sure would use it, but you would not. I find that a perfect eHelp that is 10 minutes late is better then one with a few mistakes right when you write it. Oh, ok, that makes far more sense. There should be a form though to PM the SL of the reply if you mark it as error found to speed up the process. In that case, then yes, for those that would use this I can definitely see it being beneficial. I'd definitely be for this, though I'm still unsure about the time it'd take for it to be 'approved' especially since some replies can be quite long. That would be ideal, a form, I just wasn't sure if it would've been too much to ask at one time. That would be something that would have to be tried, to measure the time. Maybe, just a little brain thought, they could add it, and it can be viewed by the member, but not emailed to him. Only once it's proof read, if asked to, would it be emailed to them, where they can't edit it. -- Posted by amiee at 9:12 am on Jan. 7, 2009 No, proof read it yourself. Spelling and grammar errors either aren't that frequent or, quite simply, aren't that big a deal. There's the occasional misuse of a tag but, again, no big deal. Basically, I don't think it's a big enough problem to need something like this implemented. I don't like the idea but I wouldn't really care if it became a feature. I just wouldn't want to be part of it. -- Posted by nikki at 3:12 pm on Jan. 7, 2009 Eh, no. I don't like the idea of people "checking up" on things like that. Everyone makes mistakes.