I know it has been said rather well already by other TRFers but I want to express my opinion that while EMRR's content is largely community driven, it IS ultimately Nick's site so he indeed has the final say on what gets posted & what doesn't. A friendly, easy to read website with content for rocketeers of all ages does not equal the evil hand of censorship.
With that said, I would like to personally address the "over-editting" and "over-formatting" issues. A little over a year ago, Nick put out a call for volunteers to assist him with proofreading product reviews submitted by the community. He had found that the reviews were coming at a frequency too great for him to handle alone while maintaining the rest of the site, not to mention wanting to have more of a life than just managing the EMRR website!
I am one of several volunteers and, according to Nick, I am the most active as far as the persons responsible for proofreading and editting the submitted content. I can tell you that there are a definite core group of 10-15 folks who have submitted reviews at a steady if not frequent pace along with a generous helping of individuals who are one-time and/or infrequent contributors during this time I have been involved. My goal as a proofreader is to make sure that each review "tells a story" along with conveying that journey with any submitted pictures. Content (text or images) that wanders off or is not relevant to the review will probably be trimmed. If it sticks to the topic, it stays. It is that simple. I am taking this opportunity make it known to inform the rocketry community that it has been MY responsibility to proofread & edit (the bulk of) the reviews submitted to EMRR and that the burden of addressing these comments should not be placed solely on Nick--although I always consider him EMRR's "editor in chief" and as such, he has final say on any content that I have put my hands on (along with any & all other content on the site). Even though I consider my relationship with Nick & EMRR to be an employee/boss-like arrangement, I do NOT get paid for my time & work--I do it as a gesture of "paying it forward" for the good of the rocketry community in the same manner that folks contribute reviews. I also will be the first to admit that I'm not perfect. I can handle having my mistakes pointed out & promise to make every effort to learn from them. My goal is to be helpful; not offend or turn off any reader and/or contributor in the audience.
Without actually having to dig through 300+ reviews that I have personally proofread during my tenure, I would "guesstimate" that about one-half to two-thirds of the reviews submitted often need little more than a spell check, fix a common grammar pitfall or two, and/or perhaps clean up a particularly clunky or fragmented sentence here or there. The remaining contributions can sometimes be downright indecipherable. I am not about to get on a soapbox and declare that the downfall of civilization is near because of any/some supposed horrible writing, language or grammar of reviews in question. But I am not a mindreader either! I can only work with what is given to me. That only leaves me with attempting to glean what the contributor meant & making sense of the submission best I can. If that comes out as being heavy handed with the "red pen" or over-editting, you have my sincerest apologies. If the submitter of a review & I were in a true paid working environment, we would work together & discuss the content, however, it is far more difficult to do that in this volunteer based environment. It would also impede the progress of updates on the site. I am not an English teacher (much less pretend to be one on TV!) out to teach how to write nor can or will I scold anyone for their submission. There simply are some submissions that just need considerable work for them to be readable and downright make sense to the remainder of the audience. I am here to make EMRR as enjoyable an experience as I can for anyone who happens to reads it.
If there is anyone that disagrees with the way their review was editted, then I strongly suggest that you revisit & reread what you submitted first.
Once you have had a chance to look it over, then we can sit down & have a mature discussion of why those changes were made if you are still unclear on the reason behind the change(s). I'm sure that Nick would not object to posting any corrected reviews, however I would expect that there would need to be substantial reason for doing so, as any addendums to reviews are more beneficial--not to mention more easily made through the Tips, Opinions, and Flight Logs of any currently existing reviews.
Regarding the over-formatting, I am unclear as to what is meant by the term so someone will have to provide more information or examples of this. I do feel that the previous two paragraphs probably address this issue though.
Here are some helpful guidelines for anyone who wants to submit a review in the future: First, take good notes (and hopefully pictures) throughout the build and when flying the rocket (write it down while it's fresh in your mind at the field!) I have found it easiest to do this by creating a text or Word file using a template that is similar in format to how the information is requested on the EMRR Submit page when putting everything together. Second, take your time writing the review. Read what you have written. Then read it again. Then wait 10, 15, even 30 minutes & come back & read it again. Print it out or read it aloud if you need to. Third, make sure that it makes sense and conveys the steps clearly and your opinion about the product. Not only does this pay dividends on the quality of your submissions, but you will probably find new insights and even patterns (good or bad) in your rocket building and launching experience, which can only benefit you in the long run! It certainly has been of great help to me.
Ultimately, EMRR wouldn't be a fraction of the valued resource to the rocketry community it is & will always be if it weren't for YOU AND THE CONTENT THAT YOU PROVIDE! I thank everyone who has submitted reviews and will submit reviews in the future to Nick's site.