Original Poster said:
I have never really liked the idea of allowing people to go back and make edits to their already submitted article. It defeats the purpose of allowing people to review every aspect of it good or bad. In the end, this is all to help the author to improve in the future. Like epic said, changing something that a person mentioned in their review would make the person who wrote the review look like he or she doesn't know what they're talking about.
I agree... but like I said earlier, what if we allowed members to submit a new version of an article, separately from the original? We could have a separate process for submitting a "revised" version of an article. I'm not sure if this is a good idea, yet, but I'm just throwing it out there.
For example, let's say I write a story, and a reviewer points out that I should try to improve this or get rid of that. Once I go and make those changes, should I be able to submit the article again, and see what people think of my improvements?
Of course, we don't want people submitting a thousand versions of one article, nor do we want people to resubmit an article that's still virtually the same as the original. So, we'd have to limit the number of resubmissions (one should be enough), and make it a rule that the "revised" article has to be substantially different from the previous version. (Otherwise nobody's going to want to look at it again.)
We wouldn't really need an automated "editing" system for this. We just need to decide if members should be able to submit an article a second time, after making significant changes. We could also find a way to have the "original" version and the "revised" version linked together somehow, so readers can easily go from one to the other.
By the way, there should also be a way for authors to link together a series of submissions (part 1, part 2, etc.), but that's another topic entirely.
