Why not create a website helping writers to get feedback on their writing before publishing? This would be especially useful for bloggers, since they generally want to publish quickly but aren't serious enough as writers to have an editor who they can count on to respond quickly.
One of the best ways for writers to improve their skills is to get feedback on their writing. This is also very helpful for improving individual pieces of writing. Writers would benefit from this because good writing will attract more readers. Furthermore, society in general would benefit from having better writers since readers would spend less time trying to interpret poor writing and good ideas would spread through society more quickly.
The main challenge to this system is to provide editors with the incentive to critique the work of the writers. As we've seen from WhyNot.net, there are plenty of people out there who are willing to critique the ideas and work of others, but we can create additional incentive by establishing a culture where writers are encouraged to critique the work of those who have provided insightful critique on their own work. If this culture is established, then each writer will critique the works of others as a way of attracting editors to their own work.
“If it's worth writing, it's worth writing well.”
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
It is difficult to generalize about an undifferentiated group but considering the literary capabilities normally encountered on the web any criticism offered would probably not be very helpful. An editor need a good deal of expertise in many directions and taking pot luck with the mass of commentators is unlikely to be fruitful.
Note my own typo, for example.
My assumption was that this system would mainly attract writers intrested in improving their own writing, and these same individuals would also serve as editors. This would mean that most contributers are interested in studying the art of writing, and should have at least a little knowledge. The editing community itself could try to improve writing and editing skills by collecting links to writing resources that exist on the web (there are plenty) and possibly even keeping a wiki that has tips and ideas about writing and editing.
The reall issue is how do we get attract enough high-quality editors while also making sure that their suggestions aren't missed among the noise of the larger gorup. I think that some sort of rating system for editors could handle this. For instance, if a writer appreciates the feedback given by a particular editor, he could mark that editor as someone whose opinion he wants to hear--in the future, any time that editor comments on that writer's work, an email will be sent to the writer notifying him.
We could even establish a universal editor rating system that would help newbe writers to identify editors who are likely to make good comments. We could give the editors points based on a number of criteria, and each user could edit his own preferences to set a minimum number of points required of editors. Points could be given for actions that indicate that the editor is serious about writing and editing, such as registering with the website or making a nominal contribution ($5) to maintain the website. He could also get a point if he has contributed his own writing for evaluation, and get a point each time a writer selects him as a useful editor (described in the previous paragraph). If this works how I think it would, only good editors would have permission to see the pre-published work of good writers.
I think this has been implemented by Urbis.com