Editorial Interpretations

Check out this interesting predicament (said with the same style that John Travolta said in the 1997 movie, Face Off):

The more we communicate with our members, the more they get mad at us for not being consistent.

1) Start with the premise that our article reviewers & quality control team members are not allowed to personally communicate with any members.

2) A year ago we had 17 templates that our editors could email notify a member when his or her article needed a quick adjustment to become approved.

3) Today, we have 31 problem article templates including the new capability to send one custom generated template email with up to 3 different problems listed at a time to be fixed.

4) The number of editors on our team has doubled over same time last year. Getting everyone on the same page including memorization of a few hundred guideline issues has been a real challenge.

There is some weird law at work here that states the more you communicate, the more consistent your members expect you to be…and perhaps rightfully so.

Statement: We intend to run an operationally efficient website that includes delivering a consistent article review, rejection & approval process with a high level of accuracy, speed and communication.

It will take us weeks and months to develop our current internal training program that is becoming modularized including benchmarks (frequent knowledge review quizzes). During this scaling transition time, we’re making more editorial interpretation review mistakes than I’d care to admit.

Platinum members may have noticed that we’re running behind by about double our normal (still 2-4x faster than basic level membership) review speed and this is largely because of an increased internal pressure to QC 100% of every article approval after the fact by a 2nd person.

One of our goals with our QC (Quality Control) team is to reach a point where their jobs are boring…ie: Our front line editors are not making mistakes…because it’s egg on our face when we have to reject an article a day or so after it was accepted. There is a buffered difference where our QC team can fix common mistakes (mis-spellings, href code errors, lack of or too many paragraph breaks, and other mechanical/format issues)… but in a handful of cases we’re having to hard reject an article after it was accepted because it should not have been accepted by the first editor.

Another 3 job offers were sent this week, so hopefully we’ll be adding another 2-pack of editors to the team in a week or so… and we know it takes about 6 weeks to bring editors up to speed.

Thanks for listening to many of thoughts on my/our minds this month. We don’t want to offer excuses, but thought it’s good to share the struggle we’re in to deliver the consistent experience you’re looking for from us as members.

Perhaps there is no weird law at work here and that the increased communication options our team has doesn’t have any connection to the anger a few handfuls of members have with us for being inconsistent…because the inconsistency has to do with the complexity of rejection options that now exist…which ironically are designed to IMPROVE the acceptance rate.


Andrew Grant writes:

You guys do a great job and I have no complaints even if it does take a few days to get my article approved. So what? It’s going to be online for years bringing me traffic – what’s a few days in that context?

The reason you’re growing is because you’re successful. You’re successful because people know you are a great place to post articles. Because of that I want to keep using you.

I’ll bet the people who get angry are the ones who a) haven’t read the guidelines, b) only have a handful of articles and therefore think that every one is critical and c) would probably complain if their cornflakes had too much milk in the mornings.

This is an amazing FREE service and I’m grateful for it.

Comment provided August 9, 2007 at 11:01 AM



I, too, think you do an amazing job at EzineArticles. Your high standards for writing and ethics demonstrate the professionalism that puts you far above the others.

And, I agree with Andrew about anyone who is getting angry at you for applying those standards and communicating. It seems to me that your communication is usually aimed at helping writers improve their writing, and they should look at your feedback as one more free service that they get from EzineArticles.

Thanks for such a great service.

Comment provided August 9, 2007 at 11:16 AM



Ahhh *shucks*… but really, EzineArticles is a team effort that I’m lucky to be in a position to be part of.

Comment provided August 9, 2007 at 11:22 AM




I really cannot add to past eulogies – you know exactly what I think of Ezine. I really do think you guys are doing an amazing job but what impresses me most, is your continued commitment to improve; to push that quality bar up just a little higher each week; each month.

Keep on doing what you are doing and you will keep on getting what you are getting – which is our total 100% support and recommendation.


Comment provided August 9, 2007 at 11:27 AM



Ditto on all of the supporting comments above and I will add that when I see poor writing quality in articles on other submission sites, I dont want my article to hang out in that company. And if the EzineArticles editors catch an error for me, thank you! When you are serious about your writing you have to pay people to be another pair of eyes… so that’s a bonus I thank you for, Chris.

Comment provided August 9, 2007 at 11:43 AM



Hi Chris!

I think it’s good to be selective. Good and necessary!

You are right when you say that demanding more from the authors the Ezine helps them improve their writing.
If they want to have their articles approved, they have to write well, paying attention to certain indispensable rules.

Besides, there are many free lessons about article writing. The basic it’s not that hard.

Chris, why don’t you have a group to teach some authors how to write their articles when they have difficulty on doing so? For example, Suzanne Lieurance’s group for the Summer Challenge is very nice! You could indicate it to some authors.

Comment provided August 9, 2007 at 5:56 PM


Chris Ralph writes:

Hey Chris –
Having high standards makes you the best quality article directory on the internet. However all of us have occasionally experienced odd situations at various businesses where new employees are being trained. Some of these situations are bad, some are just strange, but it is not that unusual that new employees make a higher number of errors than more experienced ones.

I myself have experienced strange situations with two of my articles here – on one my given birth name was rejected as “not meeting editorial guidelines” and another where an article which did not mention any companies or company names was rejected as a press release.

Not to worry – stuff happens. Do your best, fix problems as you find them and don’t let that kind of thing bother you. The bottom line is that the folks at EzineArticles are doing a great job, and that’s what counts.

Chris Ralph

Comment provided August 10, 2007 at 2:25 AM


Vern writes:

I’m just thankful to have Chris and his team
respond to my requests, comments articles so quickly.

Before I became Platinum it was pretty slow.
But I have nothing to complain about except
for the fact that yes, EzineArticles got stricker.

It’s also a good thing that new editors are being
added to the fold because with popularity comes
increase in the size.

This is great .

for two reasons:

1) We’re going to be raising the bar on the quality
of writing articles and getting good content.

WIN-WIN for both ezine publishers and also readers.

This separates between junk, vague articles
meant to capture attention only then the real
content (meaty) based articles.

2) It helps me improve my writing skills.

Heck, I had thought of throwing bad eggs at
some point. LOL! But I figured “WOW, after
getting rejected I had to reedit my articles
and review plus improve them.

This makes me a little more attentive to both
my content and intent on writing an article now.

Great “kick in the butt” for anyone starting
out in writing articles.

Kudos to all,

Comment provided August 10, 2007 at 3:40 AM


Ann L. writes:

Gosh-employee issues. Like the world hasn’t experienced that before.

What would be your alternative. Setting up an algorithm and sending robots across the articles?

Google can get away with that- I don’t suggest it for EzineArticles. That would really encourage spammers to figure out the ‘system’ so we can get garbage in…

Thanks for not doing that and keep up the team work.

Comment provided August 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.