Tools For Power Members

Thought I’d share what’s on our minds today with respect to power users of our system… ie: The top 250 authors with more than 100 articles listed. It’s our intention that as soon as the beta interface is made live in a few weeks as standard for everyone that we will begin adding advanced tools to help power users to slice through the membership interface faster and be able to do more and extract more value in less time from the process.

We’re backed up at the moment on feature requests and are executing like mad the suggestions that hundreds have sent in over the past two weeks. If you’re a power user of our system, know very soon we’ll be asking for your specific suggestions that might not make sense to sub-100 articles listed members of our system, but will make your life easier. :-)

Many have suggested giving advanced users access to our CASM system to check your content more quickly to save you from submitting content you’ve already submitted to suggestions to improve reporting speed or create summary reports with the ability to drill deeper and faster than you can today.

Always open to your thoughts…


Edward Weiss writes:

It’s always a good idea to cater to your base. The 80/20 rule really applies here with so many of your articles coming from a small percentage of authors. Maybe Lance should have his own separate login page :)

Comment provided May 30, 2006 at 3:21 PM


2 writes:

Thanks Edward, although indeed I am a very happy camper. In fact I had the craziest thought today as far as excessive limits to article writing? I am now asking myself is 10,000 articles really possible? I wonder. It seems like just yesterday I was thinking that about 1000 articles, now there are several authors beyond that milestone. But perhaps if I get to 10K I better call Guiness Book?

I guess I am really finding a little competition with Michael Russell, that guy is on fire, he is often submitting 20 articles in one day. How can anyone keep up that pace? Impressive.

Having faster methods of fixing minor errors in articles that the author of the article re-reads might be a real blessing indeed. Just the ability to quickly fix a blantant error maybe an excellent tool which can be used in real time?

Checking previous content against submissions makes sense, especially if one is creating content from past emails, forum posts, blogs, old manuals, ebooks, etc. That might be very cool too?

Of course the key is not only in the back end, but the front in and the ability to rank high in the search engines with specific topic articles, truly I find that at EzineArticles to be a MAJOR benefit to this site above all others in this online article submission category? Hmm? Maybe I should write some articles on these topics?

Comment provided May 30, 2006 at 4:00 PM


Ed Howes writes:

While I just barely fit the power user category, the submission experience is so much more pleasant here than many other directories, I have no complaint now, so I will wait for others to design the special features and then see which might be useful for me. No Change – No Growth. No Growth – No Joy.

Comment provided May 30, 2006 at 4:16 PM


Jeanette Fisher writes:

I would love to be able to make small edits and keep the article live instead of making you approve the article again. Believe me, I would only improve articles.

Comment provided June 1, 2006 at 6:01 PM


Ed Howes writes:

I have never edited anything post submission and thought if I did it would zero my view counts. Probably not but I wasn’t taking the chance. I can see why all edited articles would have to be reviewed or authors would need to believe they will be. The two or three scammers among us would have a field day doing illegal edits to violate the guidelines.

Comment provided June 1, 2006 at 6:46 PM



We see it often enough to know it would be a problem. Often when we are really on top of our game and approving edited articles (we call them the “re-review” queue) in hyper-speed, there are always a handful of authors who think we’re an automated service and then they will keep editing their article, adding an extra link in, moving the self-serving links to the top… until their edited article gets problem status’d.

We have a solution in mind to this issue, but will keep it under wraps till we’re ready to deliver on it. :)

Comment provided June 1, 2006 at 7:03 PM


Jeanette Fisher writes:

One more feature I’d like is to be able to write a note to the review editor. I just submitted an article I know you will put in a party category, but it really is for real estate sites and home buyers.

If authors knew that you would delete all their articles, they’d never violate your guidelines.

Comment provided June 1, 2006 at 10:04 PM


George Lockett writes:

For people that have submitted over 50 articles, I would like to see an article rotation system on their accounts. This would mean that old articles would get a chance to be seen on the RSS feeds.

I do not see why priority should be given to new articles as a lot of detailed knowledge could be contained in the old articles.

Also a rotation systems would keep the RSS feeds fresh with new information even if the author had not submitted any new articles for a week or two.

I would like to see one or two articles a week being moved from the bottom of the list to the top each week.


Comment provided June 2, 2006 at 2:17 AM




We have 7 editors right now plus a full time managing editor and myself every once in a while in the mix. It wouldn’t make any sense for us to allow authors to email every editor on staff as internal chaos would follow…

Instead, just send us an email to support @ or use the CONTACT US link to make your request.

Your last statement about if authors knew we would delete articles, they’d never violate our editorial guidelines? Huh? I’m not sure what you’re saying?

Comment provided June 2, 2006 at 5:44 AM




The main reason we don’t do that is so that the new articles will get a chance to be found and indexed by the major search engines.

Also, it’s a bit of a trust violation to flush out old articles and call them ‘new’ for the RSS feeds. It’s the kind of thing that can get RSS feeds banned for abuse.

The secondary reason we do it the way we do is to encourage new articles to be submitted so the freshest articles will continue to float to the top.

Keep in mind that over 80% of our traffic lands directly on a specific article thanks to a search engine hand-off, RSS feed, permission-based email alerts or the tens of thousands of articles that are forwarded by friends. This means that bringing an old article up to the top won’t have a dramatic impact on its traffic.

Comment provided June 2, 2006 at 5:52 AM


Jeanette Fisher writes:

Chris, first about the note to the review editor, what I meant was an added box on the submission form with room for a brief note. The only person to see it would be the editor at review time.

Re: Your last statement about if authors knew we would delete articles, they’d never violate our editorial guidelines? Huh? I’m not sure what you’re saying?

I’m referring to editing my old articles submitted long ago when we had the race to 100. Many of the first articles need Word formatting removed, improved bios because they all linked to one site and were written for many sites, and small edits.

You said that some authors can’t be trusted to do their own editing. My point is that your service is vital to authors; they would not violate your guidelines and take a chance that you would delete their account.

I agree with Lance: “Having faster methods of fixing minor errors in articles that the author of the article re-reads might be a real blessing indeed. Just the ability to quickly fix a blantant error maybe an excellent tool which can be used in real time?”

Comment provided June 2, 2006 at 10:16 AM


Ed Howes writes:

I think I can see how Jeanette’s idea might work. The original article stays live. The edits are summarized for edit review. The reviewer would decide based on the edit summary, whether the entire article needs to be reviewed. Once approved, the edited version replaces the original, which is deleted. The edit summary would substantially aid the edit review process and the original article stays live until the approved edited article replaces it. See what happens when you go improving everything? :-)

Comment provided June 2, 2006 at 1:09 PM


Ed Howes writes:

Afterthought: About Jeanette’s desire to leave a message for article reviewer. Many articles can fit multiple categories and policy says choose the best. That is a very subjective choice both for the author and reviewer. I have noticed my category choices overruled on a few occassions and just shrugged my shoulders. Sometimes I just wanted to get some of my articles in other than the most usual categories to expose my work to different readers. I don’t have the ambition to do a study to see what categories result in the most views or publisher pick ups, but Jeanette’s idea would be a nice touch. A reviewer comment box just below the keyword box perhaps.

Comment provided June 2, 2006 at 1:39 PM




I wish we could allow highly trusted authors to edit their own articles and we moderate in arrears instead of before it goes public again.

In another project that is more blogging oriented, that feature is one that would make a lot of sense.

For now, if you want really fast approvals, just send us an email and ask us to give priority to your edited articles and we’ll get someone on it. Best to have your edits done between 3-9am in the morning, CST as there is a high chance of intra-day approvals on your edits. Our editor work all day, but the bulk of action gets done between 4am till 4pm CST.

Comment provided June 14, 2006 at 9:46 AM



Ed Howes,

Editing your article does NOT reset your view counts. It has no impact on your views, ezinepublisher views, votes or vote counts or comments.

It’s true that there is always a small percentage of Platinum authors that will abuse the system.

It’s important to point out that we’re selfishly motivated to approve your edited articles very fast because we consider them in danger of being removed from a search engine index if they are off the public site for too long, especially if they are brand new articles. …so we already have built-in motivation to help your edited articles to be re-reviewed.

The only time we get a bit irritated is when an author will edit 100+ articles just because they wanted to change their resource box every 2 weeks. Sheesh. Snap us an email if you’re gonna be freaky with your resource box so we can talk about it. :)

Comment provided June 14, 2006 at 9:52 AM


Ed Howes writes:

I have yet to see such commitment to problem solving and author appreciation as here at EzineArticles. It is as though the staff is shepherding their investment in the cause. Very few directories I have posted on or visited seem to give a rat’s behind about what is best for their authors and I resent that even when the directory is bringing lots of readers but more about this in another blog comment.

Comment provided June 14, 2006 at 11:01 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.