You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Suggestions

    Review the cc allotment system

    After the fracas that ensued, I was quite surprised to receive a notification that my answer had been allotted cash credits of Rs.3 here. This and the Best Answer, (which was perhaps courtesy of the author) confirmed that my stand was right. Never have I known ISC to allot CC for partially correct responses, or responses which appear to be acrimonious, (even if they aren't).

    A big thank you to whoever thought my response to be worthy to be allotted Rs.3.

    However, someone decided that Rs.3 was too much and turned the amount to Re.1.

    Now, since this is not an automated process, I do not get how or why the amount was lowered. It is a small sum I know, and I am not asking for the CC to be reverted. However, there are a few points I want to make –

    1. What happened indicates the lack of coordination at the back end. Maybe editors can have a conference before allotting such significant amounts because it appears they are not at liberty to allot as they please. There is someone keeping tabs.
    2. And I know ISC has an internal policy of not reducing cash credits, once awarded. I have been told this.
    3. It is a small matter, but it affects people – the editor who allotted the CC must feel slighted.
    4. I feel affronted. This is not a training ground, and I am not a guinea pig that lessons on how to allot CC or how much to allot are taught at my expense. It is better to resolve this between the editorial team, rather than making changes after cash has been announced. Don't give the cash credits, if someone else is going to deduct some of it. It speaks of poor management.
  • #600395
    Sorry to say that you are taking every opportunity to highlight something to make the editorial team at pointed fingers. Don't think that every thing would be discussed in the back drop and decisions are taken based on the directions given. Sometimes an editor may award higher c.c and may review his own decision and the same thing happened here. Good responses and qualitative threads are awarded with some good c.c and this is not a new introduction. You never raised the issue when your resources were given higher c.c after a review but trying now to make your own analysis to point someone as if they were acting against you.
    Regards,
    Jagdish

  • #600397
    We're being very touchy. This thread was posted as a suggestion. With a bit of history, or else I would have been accused of having failed to provide the backdrop.
    1. You are accusing me falsely because I raise a point that highlights something that I saw as a problem. Whom else could this issue be addressed to? Can you suggest anyone else other than the editorial team? Or do you not want anyone to raise anything unless it is in praise.
    2. The reviewing should be done before the cc is awarded – is it asking for too much. A five-minute delay is not going to bring down the heavens. The same person should have deliberated before the action. Such actions do appear as poor management. Whoever gave and reduced the cc should have known better.
    3. Would you have reacted differently had I sent a thank you note on the forum for the raised cc in the resource section? Do I take it that your reaction is based on my past non-reactions? Should my interactions be based on how I reacted to other situations in the past? Please stick to the point being discussed. I don't see the need to bring out the past when a fresh issue is raised. How would this end if I begin questioning why you didn't react in a certain way when you could/should have? Every situation is independent of the other and demands a different reaction – I hope you realise that. I pointed out something that was amiss. If you want to think of it as pointing a finger at you, then so be it.

    "A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak" - Michael Garrett Marino

  • #600403
    Yes Juana in my case too many a times the cash credit awarded was later reduced. That means there is no proper coordination between the first editor and the reviewing editor. Moreover when a post was appreciated by the Managing editor and even pinned up , that indicates that concerned editor must take note off. But no cash credit is awarded which is very much not acceptable. When ever a thread gets highlighted with a pin or emoticon that means it is better than other threads and that needs to be rewarded. Not that we are fighting for one rupee or two rupee, what we want that uniformity of following the rules which must be enforced to all.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #600405
    Ms.Juana,
    Your question is very clear regarding the reduction of c.c and so is my response. Had you ended up your post with the simple query, I could have simply forwarded your request to the Editor concerned to respond to it. But you have scripted a picture as to what would would have happened behind the curtain which would give wrong leads to other members or a newbie. You are one of my favourite authors in ISC for crafting the words very beautifully even some of them are used to drive the ball outside the fence and follow all your posts very silently. Your comments at Sl.No. 4 in the thread caught me more astonished and your response suggests me to confine the argument to the present thread. It's not me who dragged ME's response in another thread where a member requested the Editors to be liberal. I can't play with words as I am not proficient in my language as many in our ISC but always prefer to play straight.

    You say that you are highlighting certain points on behalf of the members and the same I too do. In many a case, I am not responsible for the edits that are pointed out here but I respond on their behalf after due verification when they are off-line. Let's leave the topic here and I would request the Editor to give you the reason for lowering the c.c for your response in case you still want to know. However, your suggestion not to lower the c.c once awarded is taken note of and would be put up to Admin.

    @Mohan: Generally, c.c would be given for a thread which is pinned based on the quality of the post. But certain threads which are alert like time to file IT return, health alerts etc are also pinned and may not get any c.c. Giving emoticon to a thread doesn't warrant any c.c.

    Regards,
    Jagdish

  • #600409
    As per my understanding, the response from the author there doesn't deserve any CC. The author has not responded to the query of the member. The member asked whether he should go for a showroom dealers service or to get serviced by a private agency. The answer in series is not a fitting response to the question raised by the member. I think, the editor (not the member) has selected it as best answer and awarded Rs. 3 CC for the irrelevant response. Later, the editor could have realized that the response was not worth Rs. 3 CC and got it reduced to Rs. 1. In fact, the response deserves no CC.

    Despite the above, I would say that the editors should think well once or twice or thrice before awarding CC to a post or response. Editors should never be in a hurry to award CC. Also, once awarded, it should never be taken back or reduced.

    It is very true that ISC finance (CC)is poorly managed by the hasty editorial team.

    ISC need to improve in this aspect.

    No life without Sun ¤

  • #600410
    I respect that in you – yes, I find you playing straight, and I openly acknowledge that.

    I was the aggrieved member here. It isn't about the petty sum; it was more about how I was treated. I have my own way of expressing things; it may be different from yours.

    I stand by my view because planning and execution are part of good management. In this case, the team wasn't involved as a whole, and even if one member of the team acts, it is on behalf of the entire team. This is why it is important to coordinate, set rules and follow them. And I say it again; taking back cash that has been credited goes against the "internal policy of ISC" – it is done only if there has been a fraud.

    The response needn't have been given cc, but to give and to take away is bad practice. In my mind I am speculating what must have happened - and believe me, the scenario, in my mind, doesn't look good.

    I mentioned an interaction with your Managing Editor in Mohan's thread because it was relevant to the discussion; it highlighted her liberal view, in support of the author (Mohan). I should probably have agreed with him. I'll remember to not bring in other relevant subjects into the discussion, in future.

    Yes, let's leave the topic here. No point flogging a dead horse.

    One last thing, I request you and all the other editors to please refrain from bringing in my English language skills into every discussion – you make a good thing look bad. I state facts, and you guys term it as playing with words.

    "A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak" - Michael Garrett Marino

  • #600414
    Mr. Patro,
    Your words - "I can't play with words as I am not proficient in my language as many in our ISC but always prefer to play straight." Everyone is expected to play with the words they know and to play straight. There is nothing wrong if the author has played with her words. Why do you have an inferiority complex for not having proficiency in English? Kindly learn good English to overcome your inferiority complex, and try to be superior to other ISCian. You should have avoided saying so. In fact, the member's proficiency in English helps the members of ISC to enhance their English vocabulary and style. Though the member has a typical attitude, I admire her English knowledge.

    Sorry Editor. You are not up to the mark.

    No life without Sun ¤

  • #600419
    Sun,
    Thanks for the compliment and exhibition of your level of understanding. I don't want to be trapped into your provocative techniques as usual and all the members are intelligent enough to assess the abilities and nature of the members and Editors. Just I am leaving here and signing out from this thread.

    Regards,
    Jagdish

  • #600425
    Patro,
    That's a good understanding by an editor of your caliber. Anyway, May God bless you with proficiency in English to equal the many proficient members we have at ISC. Good day to you.

    By the by, My business is not to trap anyone in a virtual site, but to be straight forward and point out the mistakes, and also to suggest and advise the wrong doers.

    No life without Sun ¤

  • #600567
    The response at #600395 which includes the point 'Sometimes an editor may award higher c.c and may review his own decision and the same thing happened here. ' appears to be sufficient enough to address the query. There are set directions in place as to how cc should be calculated and awarded but a review of the same is also permitted. Editors cannot function like the automated system and hence such changes may take place. Members are at liberty to raise threads if they feel aggrieved by such an action basing their grievance on the relevance and quality of the content they post. This thread is now being locked to avoid further deviation by interested parties.
    'Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance'- Confucius


  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.