Category View Date Change

Previously, articles in what we call the “category view” were sorted by APPROVED DATE. This is the last date an article was approved on. Some members figured out that all they had to do is edit their article, have us review it, and they were able to bring their old article to the front of the line in the category view.

Now, articles in the category view are sorted by original SUBMIT DATE with a secondary sort by article ID. This prevents the above gaming of the system.


Thaddeus Ferguson writes:

One question?

For those who have the Premium service and choose to release their articles at a later date what effect (affect?) will that have on them?

Comment provided September 25, 2008 at 10:54 AM


Gert Hough writes:

It is good to have a change of the way the system sorts the articles. I can imagine what burden it would have placed on the editorial staff just to re-check all those articles. The fact that the date change setup was changed would only affect those that were gaming the system.

Comment provided September 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM




If a Premium member submitted their article today, the SUBMIT DATE would be September 25, 2008 and they scheduled it for release on October 10, 2008; the article would be sorted into the CATEGORY VIEW based on the September 25th, 2008 date and not the APPROVED date of October 10th.

Being in a good position in the CATEGORY VIEW is not critical despite how many members swear it is. We know it’s not, but we also know our members have many ideas of the way they think things are when in fact they aren’t.

There is a solution to this issue and it requires us taking the site down for 45-60 minutes…and this is not something we’re willing to do right now. We would add a new date field to every article so that we would be able to track SUBMIT DATE, 1st APPROVED DATE (or 1st PUBLISHED DATE) and then RE-APPROVED DATE for when an article gets edited and re-approved.

ETA is not set yet but if we find another higher priority database change that is needed that will require the site going down on purpose, we’ll work this fix in.

Comment provided September 25, 2008 at 11:25 AM


Thaddeus Ferguson writes:

While you say that when an article is submitted doesnt matter much, I dont really understand the benefit of the new feature that has been added then.
If I have 50 articles what is the benefit in putting them in the wait to publish feature.

Comment provided September 25, 2008 at 1:30 PM



I am with you… The “Big Dump” theory is proven better than spread over time… Still others are not convinced; hence why we offer the article scheduling service.

Comment provided September 25, 2008 at 1:53 PM



Too bad that there are so many authors with bad intentions and that the honest ones have to be treated the same way and follow the same rules!

Perhaps you could somehow distinguish the authors that deserve to have a few benefits from the authors that have to be examined all the time because they tend to be dishonest.

If you would separate the authors in basic, platinum and diamond you would be able to give to the best ones the benefits they deserve.

I think that it is a very big mistake to treat all authors the same way, because the existent differences are too many.

You gave the chance to the authors that will pay you to have a few privileges, what is quite fair because you have too many expenses with the editorial team and many headaches with the authors that try to gamble the system.

However, you should also give a few privileges to the authors that submit excellent, original, informative and educative articles everyday, because they give you more. They give you more, without any advantage.

Comment provided September 25, 2008 at 4:24 PM



Ok, let me explain you what I think. I think that when I decide to modify an article and resubmit it I must have the right to see it again in the first page, because if I will do that it’s because this article is not receiving the attention it should. I never do that for articles that are not excellent.

I know when an article is simply good but may not be appreciated by many people and when an article is excellent.

So, when I see an excellent article being despised, I have to find out why. I may discover that its title is not adequate, because when I started writing it I had another plan, but in the end I developed more another point, and the title doesn’t describe exactly the article’s content, leaving the reader disappointed.

However, I know that it is an excellent article because it is full of precious information, information that many people sell while I’m giving it entirely free of charge, so I change the title and then I see that the article receives the attention it deserves.

You cannot treat me the same way you treat the authors that try to gamble the system. I should have the right to resubmit an article and see it again in the first page, because the first time I submitted it its title was wrong or it was in the wrong category, and this is not something I do everyday but only once in a semester.

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM


Jennifer writes:

Hi Christina,

I know your post was direct to Chris, but I’d also like to comment on it.

I understand your points, but what you’re asking of Chris and his team is very impractical considering there are over 120,000 authors here.

I’m just guessing that his only option is to be as neutral and impartial as possible because once he and his team lose that, all heck will break out.

If I were to see you getting special treatment, then what’s to stop me and others from saying our articles deserve to be recycled to the top because I/we used the wrong title or resource box?

It’d just be a hassle for Chris and his team to have a gray area on the issue.

Let google, yahoo, and msn searches/searchers decide if any of your modified articles deserve the extra attention.

I think people should concentrate on writing new articles instead of recycling and modifying old ones.

I have tons of great articles getting very few views while I have plenty of articles that I don’t consider my best efforts getting a ton of views. It happens. Just write more.

Besides, this rule helps free up a lot of time for the EzineArticles team… getting us all quicker review times. That benefits us all (not the few – article modifiers), including EzineArticles.

Chris, I have a question for you about the “Big Dump” theory (big dump *giggle*) you mentioned.

I like to spread out my article submissions a few at a time every few hours. When you are talking about spreading out over time, are you talking about days or hours?

Because I’m still “dumping” all my articles out on the same day. Just giving them a little breathing space from each other.

You are comparing the spread out vs big dump in terms of days, not hours… yes?

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 2:37 PM



I understand what you mean Jennifer, I understand Chris’ point of view, but I don’t understand why the best authors cannot have privileges.

I guess I’m the only one who is always demanding that, while other good authors, who are older members than me, simply accept to be in the same position of the gamblers!

If I had time I would make an authors’ blog in order to discuss and solve many authors’ problems and defend many authors’ rights.

In the beginning I was always defending EzineArticles in my discussions here. I even remember once someone asked me if I worked for EA!

However, with time I noticed that many things are not working perfectly.

My observations:

– Good authors must have privileges.
– Good authors’ articles shall be more promoted than common articles.
– Bad authors shall not be suspended suddenly and see their business fall suddenly, without a notification, an agreement, etc. because all their articles suddenly disappear from the web when EA’ team decides to suspend their account.
– Bad authors shall not be exposed in this blog for any reason.

Now, if my suggestions won’t be accepted, never mind. We are only discussing!

I could not read that all authors have to accept seeing their re-submitted articles in the same place they were before being modified without complaining for that, and I already explained why.

If everyone here would simply agree with Chris’ decisions, we wouldn’t have what to discuss.

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

I would say that the “Big Dump Theory” is okay, but spreading it out over time makes sense now that authors will have followers via “subscribe to this author” and so, over-time theory, now gets another advantage over Big Dump theory and in my mind makes it a wash and a matter of preference. Still, I personally like the over-time-theory myself.

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 4:29 PM


Jennifer writes:

Hi Christina,

Although I’d like privileges because I think I’m a great contributor to EzineArticles, I’ll tell you why I’ll almost always be with Chris whenever he does something that authors consider a restriction on them…

Because EzineArticles is a business and it needs to stay on top.

Whatever they do to stay on top, I’m for, because I benefit over the long term from their strength. I piggyback off EzineArticles strength in the search engines.

I can’t really think of any privilege I could get that would top that.

So if restricting article re-submits saves EzineArticles time and money and thereby speeds up article reviews for all of us, I’m all for it. I’m the one that made that suggestion to them. I think it’s a healthy restriction. It affects very few people but benefits nearly all of us.

About privileges… I did make a suggestion about a month ago on how EzineArticles could benefit from promoting those that promote them.

I said they should not spotlight any authors that haven’t written an article for them over the past 2 months. This way, if you want a privilege like being spotlighted, you need to benefit EzineArticles… by consistently writing.

It’s a win for everyone but the people who dropped out on EzineArticles.

What’s great for you and I is that we’re able to talk with the owner of this website and he isn’t closed off to implementing suggestions.

He almost has me as an employee because he listens to some of my suggestions. Because of that, I’m constantly looking around EzineArticles for things that suck or can be improved.

I think of ways to improve Chris’s business more than I do for my own business. :(

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 5:06 PM



I probably should rename my big dump theory as it’s kinda gross in name; but rock solid in theory.

The big dump theory only applies to brand new members. It does not apply to members who are already into their membership.

Over-time is best for those who are already members. :)

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 5:50 PM



I agree with you in many points, Jennifer. However, the privileges that the best authors could have don’t need to cause any damage to EA’s system.

We only need certain organization.

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 8:26 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

I know that when I first started writing articles here, I had about 200-300 articles already written from other things to post. I posted them all within 2-weeks, (my big dump or Big Content Drop) along with 5-6 new articles during that time. Then, well everything I posted was newer stuff and had to be written from scratch.

It took me a long time to before I could work up to an average of 4 articles a day, then five, then six, then eight, eventually 12 or more. I found that I could take older stuff from websites, sales letters and manuals to give me ideas on articles to write. Then, I started taking email questions and made them into the titles and used the answers along with clarifications to make articles.

Eventually, I learned that you can write articles about events, circumstances, ideas, innovations, inventions, thoughts and well, everything in my life now becomes and article, I guess I will take this comment and make it into an article too;

How to Make Most Everything in Your Life Into an Online Article

And why not, as long as it brings interesting content to the reader, makes people think or makes people smile. It’s really not so hard to take things in life and use them as anaologies to write articles. Won’t you join me in writing 2-4 articles a day to overwhelm EzineArticle’s Editors? Ha ha ha.

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 10:22 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

Christina, I have subscribed to you! And, I am graciously awaiting your next excellent article!

Oh, and I noticed that you do not have very many articles here Christina:

But, I am certain that you have read 50 or more psychology books. After all to become as knowledgeable as you are on the subjects of human psychology, depression and such, well, you must have some brilliant book review information to share with your loyal fans, like me!

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 10:26 PM



Hi Lance!

I’ve read more than too many books! but the most important is what I learned translating dreams, after reading all these books!

And I learned something very interesting in today’s discussion, thanks to Jennifer and Chris’ comments. The meaning of :( and :) ‚¬€ because I sent a message to my reviser asking her!


I learned the meaning of lol too, because this was also something I didn’t know, and since I was making funny questions, I asked her about that too.

These are your symbols, your expressions! foreigners like me need translation! :)

Comment provided September 26, 2008 at 11:30 PM




Also something else different:

We would never call an article editor a “reviser” because someone who is a “reviser” is a person who would revise an article… meaning, would REWRITE it or change it significantly.

I think when you mean “reviser” …you really mean an ‘editor’ who edits your article to improve or fix spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.

Comment provided September 27, 2008 at 8:43 AM



Hi Chris! How are you today?

Thank you for the correction! I have two editors: one for my articles and one for my ebooks.

I’m paying the first editor for nothing in fact because now my English is much better and many times she tells me that the article doesn’t need any correction! But I will keep her, for the details! They are very important, and I hate to make mistakes. I know my own language more than very well (Portuguese), but my English is far from being so excellent! My Greek is somewhere in the middle.

And by the way, since there are many authors like me who are foreigners and may read this blog, I don’t want to abandon them wondering about the meaning of the previously mentioned symbols. So, here are my editor’s explanations:

‚¬“These terms are not in the dictionary because they are mostly used in text messages, emails and instant messages, chat rooms, etc.

:) is a smile. Look from the side and you will two eyes and a smiling mouth. It is hard in email to know if someone is serious, if they are mad at you or if they are smiling. So people use it to show their good will and that they are just joking with you or smiling at you and not being too serious. Another one is the wink (when you close one eye and smile) that is ;)

You can also let someone know you are sad or mad at them with the upside down mouth :(

lol is short for Laugh Out Loud. Again, it is for text messages and instant messages when you don’t want to write the whole phrase. It means you found something so funny that it made you laugh out loud. Usually that’s a good thing.‚¬

Now, we could add :)) what would mean a large smile!

Or many things more! I have many ideas!

But I’m afraid that in the end, all the symbols together will look like Chinese!

Comment provided September 27, 2008 at 9:16 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.