Several Texas SMs have been discussing improving the wording on the Update to Editing Rank page. After consideration, I would like us to consider either deleting this line: “On the other hand, an editor who is seen to be damaging the map or engaging in suspicious editing practices, may not be granted a rank promotion despite having more than the required edit count.” or adding something like this: "Promotion to the next higher rank will not be dependent solely on edit count, but on the aforementioned criteria (editing skill and knowledge editing, quality community involvement, proper etiquette in communication,
mentoring participation, edit count suspicious or damaging edits.
We have seen numerous junior editors getting stuck on a “when I reach X edit count I should get promoted” mentality. I understand that SMs should be doing a better job of communicating the total editor picture, but thought a slight tweak to the Wiki here might help.
I would support a change in the wording as well. I agree that there needs to be something more prominent pointing out that edit count does not mean promotion, but you should participate in your local communication format and the forums as well.
I have a draft document on Promotions and Ranks / mentoring. Feel free to tweak, use, comment, etc. if that helps to promote or forward this discussion.
There needs to be a emphasize on Community involvement. We sometimes have no communication until the editor is an R3.
I am in favor of any changes that help with that goal.
I understand that there is no obligation to be a part of the local community but having at least some contact would be a plus
Agreed that we need to move the edit count from the forefront. Communication is key, if an editor does not have an open channel ( forum, pm, or local communications like GHO) they should not be moved beyond a R1 until communications is open.
I feel with the vast amount of communication channels available, there should be no reason that an editor who wants to get involved shouldn’t have some line of communication open with their SM/RC. This should be a requirement for anyone who wants to be an R3+ in my opinion.
When I started, I was almost instantly invited to my state’s GHO, even as an R1 and aside from a brief hiatus, I haven’t fallen out of touch with my fellow editors.
I agree 1000% with TheChrisK. There should be zero promotion to R3 if you are not in your states communication channel. I actually think there should be zero promotion to R2 unless you are in communication channel, maybe something like R1 is rank locked until they enter communication channel and then RC automatically unlocks them for auto-promotion at that time (no other guidelines added, just in network).
But I digress.
Once in network, then all other stuff discussed comes into play for promotions to R3+. The point requirement would only be a behind the scenes number for SMs and RC look at, and for the 80% dashboard.
I second JM. If you are not involved in your state’s community discussion, then L2 should not be possible, and point accumulation should be a behind the curtain SM and RC discussion.
I love the idea of changing from negative to positive but as for the rest of it, you are building a system that lacks rigor, so it’s nature will be arbitrary and capricious and young editors will see that. My experience with early editing was posting questions in Chat and have them completely ignored. After agonizing hours of reading meaningless babble posted by the California editors I stopped using Chat, and never went back. My forum requests pretty much got the same response. So did my initial request for mentoring when I was a R2. I believe that overall I managed to make quality edits without forums, GHO and Slack. Eventually coming in contact with senior editors did help me get to another level. Having known and achievable targets kept me motivated.
You must be the rare editor that did quality edits from day one and read the information to do so. We are glad you did. Most new editors I see (myself included) started by making red roads and disconnected segments. It wasn’t until I was brought into Slack and started getting informal mentoring that my quality improved.
I do think a side note for this discussion would be that State communication channels, including their forums, need to be fairly responsive to questions by editors. Ignoring questions by new editors is probably the easiest way to lose them.
As a little background. This discussion came up regarding two particular editors that are very active in the state channel (one in several states as he edits in multiple regions), but are not active in the forums. (Both were being considered to be promoted to R4. I fully agree that we need communication with editors, but do we need broad communications through multiple channels, or is being active in the state channel / GHO good enough?
I like the way the page revision elevates the issue of quality-over-quantity. That whole expansion of the community focus of Waze editing is very needed.
I’m leery of the reference to six months’ experience for an R4 SM. Some R4 who, say, doesn’t have the community skills for the job is sure to latch on to that and want to know why they haven’t been named SM. I preferred the previous wording in the definition of the SM, saying that it’s usually an R5 or an experienced R4, leaving it discretionary to the RC.
My principal concern is the mingling of ranks with roles (AM/SM/CM/RC/ARC/Champ). I think the distinction may get lost. Rank is rank; the role is the function you fill within the community while wearing that hat.
For instance, it’s often said that CM is an editing role, SM/RC/ARC (for example) are community roles, making decisions about certain state or regional issues. So a CM, even though they got a promotion to a countrywide area, does not make those community decisions (beyond their own SM, of course).
I’m afraid that having it all appear under a single Rank heading will confuse the issue. Rank is an assessment of your skill level; role is the job you do.