Discover

News

Certified Contributor

maryhelen

Certified Contributor
Posts: 1415

maryhelen @ 2019-11-14 21:00:13 UTC

I stand by what is and and repeat

YES the there is NO alternative "certified" IS the proper appropriate and best term.

JohanV

Certified Contributor
Posts: 6

JohanV @ 2019-11-14 21:43:48 UTC

My comment was about what different grades of contributors can DO, no matter what they would be called. (It even made someone laugh)

Actually, the name might become clearer if we know what we’re allowed to do. For example: “hey nice to meet you, I’m a low impact corrector. And you?”

Back on topic: I suggested “as-yet-undervalued contributors” or “still-distrusted contributors” get some kind of access to the “need info” category of entries, taking away some burden from our valued editors. Would that help?

microtherion

Editor
Posts: 238

microtherion @ 2019-11-14 21:45:47 UTC

imo, "valued" no offense to who is pro that word is overused and hokey

What's worse is that the 'hokey' usage is when businesses use it for everyone. We would be using it for a subset of all contributors, which might give the others the impression that they're not "valued".

As for alternatives, "certified" seems fine. But I could also imagine "distinguished", "senior", "outstanding". Maybe "leading", since we seem to bestow the status based on quantity and quality of work.

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 4033

VirileVagabond @ 2019-11-14 21:49:03 UTC

I stand by what is and and repeat

YES the there is NO alternative "certified" IS the proper appropriate and best term.


Obviously going nowhere. I will summarize my position re: the current use of "certified" as currently implemented....


It was I who originally envisioned and proposed the CC concept, and (based on that original concept) suggested the term "certified contributor". For what it's worth, I have also passed the CPA exam and practiced as a CPA for some years. Hell, have even bought a certified vehicle. Smile


As the originator, I am uniquely qualified to see the difference between what was proposed and what is now. What a CC is now does not sync with the concept of "certified"; therefore, for accuracy, a better term is advisable but admittedly not a necessity. If the CC concept continues to evolve and expand to some level (e.g. CC2) that approaches the original proposal, the term would be appropriate for that level.


Perhaps Edison could have benefited from an explanation of A/C vs DC?

maryhelen

Certified Contributor
Posts: 1415

maryhelen @ 2019-11-16 05:47:29 UTC

"valued" has no meaning vis-à-vis authority or knowledge or (accumulated-here) experience; it is too subjective and meaninglessly broad- anything and anyone can be "valued." at least select a word that means/conveys what the idea of what one who is "pick a word" is and is AUTHORIZED to do u know like in law--junior partner; in other professions and offices, associate, assistant and like that.

the bottom line is this: if the powers- that be, i.e. the editors wanted to bestow a certain level or authority to us and they want to assign us to be "certified" that should (have been) it.

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 4033

VirileVagabond @ 2019-11-16 15:57:14 UTC

"valued" has no meaning vis-à-vis authority or knowledge or (accumulated-here) experience; it is too subjective and meaninglessly broad- anything and anyone can be "valued." at least select a word that means/conveys what the idea of what one who is "pick a word" is and is AUTHORIZED to do u know like in law--junior partner; in other professions and offices, associate, assistant and like that.


BINGO! And that's why "valued" fits to how the CC concept has evolved and is currently. Since currently very little is authorized and some of that triggering editor review, "certified" no longer fits..


the bottom line is this: if the powers- that be, i.e. the editors wanted to bestow a certain level or authority to us and they want to assign us to be "certified" that should (have been) it.


BINGO again! The operative word being "if". When and if management decides to get closer to something as originally proposed, "certified" will be the correct term. As is, it is misleading and inaccurate.

mduval32323

New Editor
Posts: 310

mduval32323 @ 2019-11-28 02:51:25 UTC

My two cents is everyone is rightly frustrated over thinking that being anointed with a "title" meant you had more ability to become what you thought was a meaningful contributor and you were disappointed to find your new "powers" didn't allow you to interact much differently...I completely understand...But arguing semantics over the new "titles" you have been bestowed is wasted energy as the real fight should be on not having a meaningful change in responsibilities and approvals, not over some "title" that SHS came up with.

______
Mark

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 4865

camembert electrique @ 2019-11-28 04:37:11 UTC

Although maybe not what Bastien might have had in mind, prompting/notifying editors in charge about updates by Certified Contributors might actually be the most direct way to ensure evaluation.

On the other hand, VV, the initiator of the CC level (not satisfied what it turned to), said that if not given the option to correct freely, he might as well stay with resp. return to issuing error reports.

Therefore, we have to evaluate if CC should really stand for 'Correcting Contributor', too - but, seriously, also if (approving) corrections should(n't) be left within the sole discretion of 'certified' editors - a level of responsibility each CC has the option to gain.

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 4033

VirileVagabond @ 2019-11-28 05:17:30 UTC

Although maybe not what Bastien might have had in mind, prompting/notifying editors in charge about updates by Certified Contributors might actually be the most direct way to ensure evaluation.

On the other hand, VV, the initiator of the CC level (not satisfied what it turned to), said that if not given the option to correct freely, he might as well stay with resp. return to issuing error reports.

Therefore, we have to evaluate if CC should really stand for 'Correcting Contributor', too - but, seriously, also if (approving) corrections should(n't) be left within the sole discretion of 'certified' editors - a level of responsibility each CC has the option to gain.


Some thoughts on this....


a) I have no problems with or objections to editors receiving a prompt that a CC has made a change to any entry, assuming the editors can quickly and easily remove such notices at their discretion (more below);


b) I would guess that such notices would either be ignored when made by CCs in whom that editor has high faith or reviewed for those CCs with less history. Optimally, if a CC makes lots of changes that need to be reverted, then that status would be reconsidered (though I doubt it would ever be removed once granted); and


c) I can't say for sure, but I would guess that when I file an instrumental error report that is reviewed by an editor with whom I have lots of history, they simply make the change without personally confirming. That's what I would likely do, since the odds of not being incorrect is low enough to merit moving on to more material and complicated matters. In that environment, why not just let the change be made directly and create even more efficiencies?


To recap my original goal for CCs: my concept was a level that would lessen the burden on the editors by eliminating the need for highly experienced contributors to file some error reports (e.g. instrumental) and to allow those contributors to make minor edits that should be made but aren't worth reporting (e.g. spelling and grammar). Review triggers may be and mandatory reviews are counter to that goal.


If I were SHS management, I would want to leverage as much talent as possible but that doesn't make my position correct. Control interests may be of more import.

peter_nl

Certified Contributor
Posts: 66

peter_nl @ 2019-12-01 16:39:36 UTC

got it