I Am CK And I Wear Them Too

Seriously, when you buy a new pair of underwear… many times, it has a little sticker that says, “Inspected By #13”. Who cares I ask?

In the early days of EzineArticles — every email that our members received when an article of theirs was reviewed included an identification as to who the editor was. Example: “For quality control purposes, your article was reviewed by editor #13.”

I thought: We did this to let our members know that a real human reviewed their work before sending them the acceptance or soft-rejection letter.

The real reason: We did it to help us troubleshoot who was responsible for approving your article, should they make a mistake.

It’s now 2008 and we obsessively track every member, every article, every editor, every QC person, and every support team interaction with our systems…thus, no longer needing to include which editor reviewed your articles.

Result: Effective an hour ago, we’ve removed notifying our members which human on our team reviewed your articles. We still know and will continue to track it for QC, support, follow up and archive reasons.

One of the real issues: A handful of members…. you know, the conspiracy theory types… begin to believe certain editors are out to get them by denying their articles or being more picky than another editor.

The truth is that our team of over a dozen editors have no control over which members or which articles they load into their queues each day.

In addition there is only a 4% variation in approval mistakes being made between our editors…and we have plans to reduce that to less than a 1% variation by the end of this quarter.

In conclusion, do you wear boxers or briefs?
…and do you care which inspector reviewed your new underwear before you remove the sticker?


Eula writes:

Bravo- there are somethings that just aren’t worth the hassle.

“In conclusion, do you wear boxers or briefs? ”
Neither, I wear G-strings! And you have only one guess as to what the inspecter’s number is…

Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM


P.Pal writes:

I am sorry Chris but I have to disagree with you on this one. It has probably happened to me hundreds of times where one of my articles gets rejected by one editor and later accepted by another when submitted again without any modification(Because their was no error). So there is a slight difference in opinion I guess or maybe a difference between human emotions and the way one interprets the same thing.

Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 2:57 PM


P.Pal writes:

There is always a difference between humans and this is the reason why it’s always said that no two individuals can ever be similar. Some are good others are bad, some succeed yet some fail, some are positive yet some negative, some are experts while others are amateurs and this is where the difference exists.

Another thing I would like to point out is that there is a big difference between underwear and an article (I do get what you mean though). You see an article is something which involves a person’s opinion, views, observations, expert tips, emotions and dedication. Whereas when you look at a factory where underpants are produced they are look somewhat similar so in that situation it might not matter whether “X” or “Y” inspected it. But with articles I guess it does make a difference. Just my opinion though (Apologies if I sounded rude).

Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 3:06 PM


Susan Scharfman writes:

You’re asking for trouble with this one. Does Britney wear either? I’m gone.

Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 3:13 PM


Allen Graves writes:

Nope, I don’t mind at all which editor reviews my articles.
As we all know, if you write original, quality and well-written content, your articles will only be declined for the rare typo or missed capital letter.
I don’t see a problem with this decision…

Allen Graves

Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 3:18 PM



P.Pal anonymous person,

I agree… that underwear consistency is something that a manf. can get down to a high degree of identical tolerances between each set produced… compared to articles that vary a great deal.

I was trying to say that our editors are focused on doing their best to be as consistent as possible from one editor to another in terms of the standards that are applied when each editor has to make a judgment call (as they do daily).

We’re fully aware almost instantly thanks to member feedback when our editors don’t approve/review with the same consistencies.

Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM



I must admit I think of EzineArticles much like I think of Google or Father Xmas – I think of them as institutions and tend to forget about the Elves who do all the real hard work!!

I would never blame an Elf if Father Xmas delivered the wrong size boxers!

Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM


P.Pal writes:

I truly appreciate the feedback Chris. I have been submitted my articles to EzineArticles since the last 6 months and since than I haven’t even dared to stare at another article directory(Thanks to the exposure and your dedicated team). I am almost reaching the 700 article mark and my goal is to reach 1000 before April. Hope it happens soon:).

Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 3:37 PM



Who reads my articles does not matter, as I feel you are wise enough to hire only the best. As writers, we have to get over criticism or fail.
But, The underwear thing has my interest. What a fun way to encourage writers to send articles…A monthly prize of brand new underwear with the Ezine logo on them, saying something like: “I am a closet Ezine Freak!” or “My underwear is prettier than yours,” or “No, I’m not into porn, I am a ‘dignified’ writer!”
Of course I am being silly. but, What do you think?

Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 3:39 PM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

I’m with you on the underwear Patricia!

I want some jocks. I’m thinking I’ll wear them as jammies so when I’m up at 3 AM writing articles (yes, I do that – I know I’m weird), I can tell everyone it’s because Chris HEXED my jammies and I can’t sleep.

Way Cool Jocks!

But, I have to tell you, I don’t care how they do the behind the scenes tracking on articles, posting, etc. These guys are AWESOME! I’ve had a recurring posting issue for a while now, which I tolerated and ignored until I got beyond frustrated. I should have just contacted support! Once they could see what was happening. It was fixed.

I’m tellin’ ya, I Love LOVE LOVE these guys!!!! They are incredible at their job, no matter who reads the articles.


Comment provided January 30, 2008 at 5:51 PM



Hi Chris!

My opinion about your editors is totally different from Jan’s opinion!
Your editors make many mistakes with the categories when our articles can fit in many.
However, it doesn’t help to know the editor’s number: nobody assumes silly mistakes!

The solution? Tolerance from our part. We authors have to wait and see if your editors will put our article in the category we want or tell them to remove it from the category they chose when it is not the one we want, when our article can fit in many categories.

I had a problem with an article and I had to change its category 3 times because your editors were not agreeing with me, without reason. In the end the article is where I decided to put it because I wrote it especially for that category! However, it lost impact.

Wish your editors would Ask us when they decide to change our article’s category or at least respect our decision when we tell them we don’t want to put the article in the category they chose. Some times they simply accept our decision, but not always.

(And, the boxer doesn’t fit with the subject. It was a bad idea.)

Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 8:28 AM



What happened now was funny: I saw a warning that I already had sent my comment but it didn’t appear in my page. When I deleted the last phrase, the two comments appeared!. [MODERATORS NOTE: I REMOVED THE DUPLICATE BLOG COMMENT]

Never mind about the boxer, even though the idea was not good.
Correct your editor’s behaviour and tell them to pay Attention to what they do!

Once they put one of my articles about dream interpretation in the category Sleep ‚¬€ Snoring, that is for people that suffer from insomnia!!
Without sleeping they cannot see dreams and interpret them! Wish I knew who was the editor that made this mistake! and he or she made it Twice!!! Once was not enough.

Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 8:38 AM




There is always a reason 100% of the time when an editor makes a category change decision: It has to do with readership trust above member desires in this case.

Unfortunately, we’re not setup [on purpose] to be able to have lengthy conversations with members each time an editor makes a category move decision.

Lastly, this is a resolved issue and for privacy reasons, I won’t address further in this public blog. If you have further issue, please take the conversation private with our member support team. Thanks.

Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 9:33 AM


Susan Scharfman writes:


To my knowledge there is only one living professional popular author that has ever gotten away with not allowing an editor’s commentary or input to their work. When she was still writing, that was Ann Rice.

In this highly competitive field, you have to leave your ego on the shelf, next to that beautiful coffee mug, and be happy that Chris has hired pros instead of hacks. Cheers!

Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 10:43 AM



Hi Susan!

What are you talking about? This was not criticism from the editors but mistakes they made.
The editors are supposed to correct the mistakes made by the authors, not to make worse mistakes when they try to correct something.


When you are correct I applaud you, but when something is wrong, I have to tell you, and I do that in order to help you correct the existent mistakes, so that things will work perfectly at EzineArticles. This is always my intention.

If when we leave our comment here we always agree with you, our opinion is not helpful. Here you have to accept criticism, not only compliments, because we the authors are your partners. We work for you and EzineArticles works for us. We have to achieve the best together.

Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 12:28 PM



“One of the real issues: A handful of members!. you know, the conspiracy theory types! begin to believe certain editors are out to get them by denying their articles or being more picky than another editor.”

Good grief… what is wrong with people that they think they are that important? I can see it though… people get so full of themselves. Gads.

I personally loved knowing I could connect with the person who said my article had problems. I knew by that, that the goal was to get it published and I had someone who was helping me do that.

People.. gads!

Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 12:44 PM



Yes, Kathy, the editors have to help the authors and the authors have to accept their criticism.
The same way, the editors have to pay attention to what they are doing and accept the authors’ criticism when they are wrong.

Nobody is perfect and we have a common goal: to achieve the best results with our articles.

Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 1:56 PM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

Personally, I appreciate a comment back when I’ve created an article with a problem. It’s not very often you get FREE editing for your writing. I’ve had to pay as much as $15.00 a page for editing. When you’re talking a 280 page book, that ads up to a whopping $4200.00 for editing. That’s a bunch of money. Albeit was a text book, and I made money on it, but that’s still a chunk of change to lay out for someone to look over a book.

Guess it depends on your purpose?


Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM



Did you pay attention to what happened to me twice?

I can understand the problem of the category when my article fits on Mental health and also on Depression, Psychology and Spirituality for example. I may decide to put it on Mental Health but the editor believes it should go to Psychology or backwards. Ok, we can discuss this matter and chose together the best category for the article.

However, my beautiful article was in the correct category: Psychology, and the EA’s editor put it on Sleeping-Snoring, which is a category for people that have problems sleeping and therefore cannot see dreams in order to interpret them. This mistake was made twice with my articles.

I cannot find a logical explanation for that.
Why would an editor take my article from the correct category to put it in a totally wrong one?

Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 2:29 PM



EzineArticles… of clothing.


Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 8:10 PM


Caroline writes:

In such a highly competitive field, you must leave ego on the shelf, Because the best and most honest are the ones that get anywhere due to the universal fact if one gives one will receive…. No way around this…

Comment provided January 31, 2008 at 11:34 PM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.