[James Brancheau]

Maybe it's pointless and they should get rid of it, but received and in progress never meant anything to me. As long as they've actually received it. Beyond that, nothing I can do or should bother about.

[Roger Slater]

It matters because a lot of people take a mere "received" to mean that no one has read the submission, and so if they continue to see "received" months after it was submitted they feel that they are being ignored, and if they get a rejection without ever seeing "in progress" they conclude their submission was never even read before it was rejected. I know that some people believe his, because they've told me and/or posted a complaint on Facebook to that effect.

[James Brancheau]

I guess I figure they might be like me and forget to click the button or whatever. I don't take it that seriously.

[Ann Drysdale]

As I recall, we have a specialised forum on Eratosphericals:

Pub
a non-public forum for the discussion of publication issues by Eratosphere members only.

It might be a safer place to discuss such issues.

[Jayne Osborn]

That's a very good idea, Annie.
(I could move this thread there, Max, if you'd like me to.)

Jayne

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Jayne Osborn

(I could move this thread there, Max, if you'd like me to.)

If it's up to me, I'll say no. (I mentioned Eratosphericals in my initial post.) Posts in Eratosphericals are very likely to go unseen. We don't even see whether there's anything new there until after logging in there, and since it's been nearly a year and half since anything's been posted there, how many of us regularly log in to check?

Originally Posted by Ann Drysdale

Eratosphericals:

Pub
a non-public forum for the discussion of publication issues by Eratosphere members only.

It might be a safer place to discuss such issues.

Safer for whom? Does Smartish Pace need to be protected from Maryann's opininion? If Maryann were afraid of their wrath, she wouldn't have shared publically.

A public forum, at least a forum public enough that Sphereans are likely to know that something's been posted there, seems more helpful than a non-public one. And since most of us tend--when not discussing politics at least--to be pretty even keeled and to deal in facts (Maryann does mildly express her opinion, but she's very factual in backing it up), I don't see the danger.

[Roger Slater]

Maybe someone should set up a private group on Facebook. Such groups are visible only to members. I'm not volunteering to set it up, though. I only submit to a handful of magazines (children's stuff) and have no tales to tell.

[Max Goodman]

I have a moral objection to spending any more time on Facebook than is absolutely necessarily, since any time spent there enriches a company that--to cite only one of the ways it harms us--profits from political lies and makes it harder to elect public servants who want people to know the truth.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/warr...ad-policy.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/warr...p-meeting.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebo...a_data_scandal

I know whatever's done won't be done to please me alone, but I want to add my feeling as a data point for consideration.

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by Max Goodman

Posts in Eratosphericals are very likely to go unseen. We don't even see whether there's anything new there until after logging in there, and since it's been nearly a year and half since anything's been posted there, how many of us regularly log in to check?

Is that the case Max? I see all the new posts that appear in other password-protected forums in D&A; they show up in the "What's New" list. You'd have to have logged in once upon a time, but after that ... at least, that's how it works with D&A.

I was looking at Eratosphericals yesterday, and didn't have to log in.

-Matt

[Aaron Novick]

It's going to depend on your cookies, I think. I routinely am logged out and don't log back in until something prompts me to remember to do so (as happened just now).