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. :)

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.

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?”

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.

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?

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.

George

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