The debate about wanting to be first past the post on the internet is an ongoing one, but as long as we\’re a film news source and not a magazine blog, I fear we\’re stuck with this system. I can say that the features we run that are not news-reliant are all pre-edited by multiple editors, so we do it where we can.

And finally, as suggested below, Edward\’s comment about banning was not directed at you, but at a particularly ill-considered, now-deleted remark from another commenter. Your comment may have got our goat, but that\’s hardly a bannable offence (we\’d have no commenters left).

In any case, thank you for reading and responding to my reply. And without the snark this time, we\’re genuinely always looking for editors and you clearly care about this stuff, so while I may not have oversold the job, do think about it.

Hah! This is exactly like that bit in Fast Five where Vin Diesel offers arch enemy The Rock the arm-grab of brotherhood.

We don\’t take kindly to shit laid on our frontdoor and we take it even less kindly when it\’s personally aimed at any one on our team.

As I said, I have enjoyed reading The Playlist for a long time. And maybe you\’re right, it is belittling to suggest that \’a cursory glance\’ is all your editors need give to a post.

I still think that volunteer writers (volunteer is not a synonym for amateur) could manage to rein in some of the more egregious typos. I\’m certainly not picking on this post. Reading back on what I wrote, it is a bit haughty.

There is also, on the internet, a tendency towards getting things up as quickly as possible, and I\’m sure that has a part to play here. So, apologies for insulting your work. I definitely didn\’t mean to imply that your work, or that of the editors, has no value, here. It is probably a testament to my frequent readership that I make it through a post before anyone has had a chance to fix it.

One last thing though, for Edward, banning someone for what was intended to be constructive criticism is extreme and unfair.

You know what\’s useful? When a commenter politely points out to us that a particular post appears to have been overlooked by the editing team (yes we have editors – a whole team of them, though \”hiring\” is misleading as we are all volunteers). Because while we try to get to posts quickly after they go live (we mostly cannot pre-edit), sometimes things fall through the cracks. The above post did have typing errors in it that were missed, so we\’ve taken another look at it.

You know what\’s NOT useful? Telling us with an air of world-weary superiority that a \”cursory glance\” over the posts would make your reading experience so much better, when it should be pretty clear that most of the time our posts benefit from quite a bit more than a cursory glance.

So you think we need a new editor? Actually we\’re always on the lookout for them. Simply hit \”contact us\” and we\’d be delighted to consider your application. The perks of the job: no salary, no bonus and all the satisfaction of knowing no one gives a shit when you do your job well, but miss a couple of typos and the whole internet gets to weigh in on how you should be fired. From your job that doesn\’t pay.

Great to have you aboard!

Real cinema.