Regarding rejection e-mails

[Curoi]

I applaud the staff for tirelessly editing what must be a veritable mountain of submissions. It is more than many other content sites seem to bother doing. The high standards are impressive.

My only thought before the "three strikes" rule kicks in and sends me back to writing err...."elsewhere"... is that the criticism is exceptionally vague and gives little guidance as to what is wrong with a piece. My last article was rejected for "lack of clarity, inappropriate word choice and inaccuracy." I'm a bit stumped on these claims for the article I submitted. All of the facts were taken from well established news sources (not rant sites, blogs, or pundits) so their accuracy should not be a problem. (With the inability to include online sources, it seems difficult to dispute any inaccuracy claim.) The requester wanted a "blog" style piece and so my tone was informal and a bit "snarky" (as seems to be the rage in the blog-o-sphere). However, while grammatical rules were used a bit loosely, I don't believe any were horribly sacrificed. (Admittedly, I could be wrong on that account.) Without more than the one liner automated rejection slip, it is hard to rework the article to match editorial expectations and comply with explicit customer requests.

Anyway, just a quick thought. I understand you probably can't provide detailed feedback due to the high volume, but if the process could be tweaked just a bit I think it might help others out before they get the boot. Thanks for the chance to speak!

[Ed]

The only article I recall for rejecting yesterday for accuracy stated that Obama closed Guantanamo, or the sentence in which this information is contained implied he already closed it. In fact, he ordered that it be closed within a year/began the process of closing it. I don't know if this was your article, but it is extremely important to accurately state the nature of the situation being described. Even if an author has used respected sources, the information can still be conflated, oversimplified, misread/misquoted, or reported in a manner that does not accurately represent the situation.

Web pages can be cited. We simply do not allow the actual web addresses/links to be present. http://www.constant-content.com/forum/v ... =2&t=14101

In general, unclear/muddled wording, vague wording, wrong wording, or sentence structure errors can create problems with clarity. Excessive use of pronouns or the use of pronouns that do not clearly refer to an antecedent can be problematic. Clarity is the number one tool a writer has to present information, and it is important that authors who submit to Constant Content strive for clarity. This can be done without the sacrifice of information, tone, or writing rules, and can often, in fact, be heightened by their careful use.

And excellent resource for identifying problems with clarity can be found here for anyone interested:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/ ... tclar.html

Thanks,
Ed

[BarryDavidson]

You might also add that the military judge ignored Obama's request (orders) to stop trials for 120 days.

[Celeste Stewart]

And that closing Gitmo isn't going to be easy as already people, organizations, and entire countries are lining up with their "Not in my backyard" signs.

[Ed]

This is getting off-topic. If anyone would like to write an article on this request/idea, it's for that writer to decide what goes into the article. Let's not risk this thread getting political and stick to the technical issue at hand.

Thanks,
Ed

[Celeste Stewart]

Sorry. I was just being sassy and grumpy after reading the paper this morning. My apologies.

[Curoi]

Thanks for the detailed response. Yes, that was the correct article you mentioned. I appreciate you taking the time to dig it up and respond directly. I wasn't necessarily looking for specifics on that article (I abandoned it and moved on to other writing, though I may take a second look now). I was just hoping for a way to get better feedback in general. Of course, I think I found what I was seeking here at the forums. I understand perfectly the reason for rejection of the submission; I should have been more explicit in reporting the facts. ("Obama signed an Executive Order to close...." instead of "Obama closed..."). I think I got a little too loose with the informal tone I was trying to set.

And yes, I pointed out some of the pitfalls of the decision, though I didn't have the word count to go into detail given the nature of the overall piece. Since I have some law enforcement experience, the complications of trying these guys in federal courts was more interesting to me than other countries closing their doors. It gets more into the fundamentals of our entire justice system as opposed to a diplomatic game of "hot potato". Both are interesting, but one is more difficult to overcome without re-writing the entire playbook IMO.