Rejection Question - Editorial/Opinion

[JordanRichardson]

I haven't written anything for Constant Content in a little while. Excited to get back into the glorious fray, I penned an article titled "Looking at Monsanto" and popped it in for review. Much to my delight, I received an email mere hours after the submission. My article was rejected.

The reason? "We do not generally consider opinion-based or editorial-style content."

Huh?

Dumbfounded, I looked through some of the articles currently up for sale. I found a slew of book reviews, music reviews, top ten lists on the "best musical gigs" in the United Kingdom, an article titled "Why American Children Should Be Multilingual," an article called "How WikiLeaks Is Leveraging the World," another called "One Youthful Mistake: How Sex Registries Are Ruining Young Lives," yet another called "WikiLeaks: Is Secrecy Impossible With the Internet?," another called "Stimulus or Austerity: Which Is Right for This Country?," and so on. These articles, fine pieces I'm sure, all seem to constitute what could best be described as "opinion-based" content.

My article, "Looking at Monsanto," isn't an objective piece. But it is, in fact, mostly an historical documentation of the company's history. There is one concluding paragraph that could be construed as especially opinionated, but it is an effective summation.

With other pieces clearly couched in opinion and "editorial-style content," I thought the guidelines would provide some sort of answer. After working through the extended guidelines, I found the pertinent section. It says:

"We do not accept opinion-based or editorial-style pieces."

Oh. Not very helpful. I scanned the forums and came across one topic, but it was locked after the initial post and no explanation was offered.

So what gives? Why does Constant Content reject articles that are "editorial" in nature? And why so inconsistent with these rejections? Is it not the business of a prospective buyer as to what style, editorial or not, he or she chooses to purchase? I understand quality standards, without question, but this seems a little thin to me.

[CRDonovan]

Interesting question. I don't have the answer, but I'd be interested in what others think too. Must be a fine line between editorial and slant, I'm thinking.

[JordanRichardson]

Yes, perhaps if there was a more detailed explanation in the guidelines it would be helpful. As it is, it seems a rather arbitrary rejection.

[jadedragon]

Previously the site has stated that there is little market for opinion pieces. Buyers here are looking for factual informative articles they can use.

You can lay out the facts and tend toward a conclusion, but avoid expressing opinion.

Thanks for the idea for a blog post

[JordanRichardson]

Interesting, as I've made quite a bit of money "expressing opinions." And, as stated in my opening post, there appear to be countless other articles expressing opinions. To counter the idea that "nobody cares what you think" expressed glibly in your blog post, by the way, I would also suggest that it could be argued that nobody cares about the mere recalibration of Wikipedia articles that constitute so many informational pieces. The fact is that a well-crafted, well-considered opinion does matter and does sell.

And if it doesn't, who should care but me? Since when is Constant Content in the business of rejecting an article based on whether or not "they" think it would sell? Rejecting a piece for grammatical mistakes is one thing; rejecting an article for taking an "editorial stance" when there are countless other pieces here that take "editorial stances" is another altogether.

So I guess I still have the questions I originally had. I'm not surprised.

In any event, it would seem this site isn't for me after all. From waiting well over a month for publication only to be referred to the infallible nature of the editors to this pointless "rejection," Constant Content just doesn't add much by way of substance for me - at least not for my 35 percent.

I know I may sound irritated. I am. I'm irritated that a site that continually brags about itself for having "the highest editorial standards" appears to be so dreadfully ambiguous and capricious with respect to its "guidelines."

All the best.

[jadedragon]

I suggest reading the Extended Writer Guidelines found under Help. They say, in part:

Useful Information
Articles submitted to Constant Content must always contain information that is useful to the reader and present that information in a useful way.

Opinion-Based or Editorial-Style Pieces
We do not accept opinion-based or editorial-style pieces.
http://www.constant-content.com/about/e ... m#opinions

Also, this page http://www.constant-content.com/blog/20 ... arratives/ explains in detail the problems with personal narrative which includes opinion (a form of author intrusion).

Their site, their rules. Remember the site pays an editor to check the article and they have a customer base looking for content that does not contain opinions. Who are we to tell Constant Content they have to spend time and money reviewing articles that are against their guidelines?

As for articles that may appear to be opinion based pieces, I understand that in the past the site did accept opinion based pieces and some are still hanging around. Also, a title that could be opinion oriented may not actually be. There is a fine line.

I suggest removing or rewording the offending parts and resubmitting. Don't just write the site off because you don't like the rules. Coming to the forum expressing your opinion that the site is wrong will not contribute to success here either.