Fifth Rejection : All I ask for is consistency...

[Hugh]

Sigh.
I've now had my article rejected five times.
I'm prepared to state that I can *somewhat* understand the first three rejections.
Those were based on length and formatting issues, which I'd argue Constant Content does a poor job of conveying. Telling potential contributors their article is too long when the site's pricing guidelines show article lengths exceeding 2000 words is "confusing" at best.
Then there was the "paragraph spacing" issue, for both the article and the summary.
That warranted a rejection for each. So just on the "make it purty" level, that was three rejections.
On the fourth go 'round, here's the rejection...

"Russia and Russians place domestic order above all other values and this accounts for the countries tendency to be ruled by strong-willed, authoritarian figures." -- Run on sentence. //
"Drinking is a national pastime too, as Russia has some of the highest alcoholism rates in the world. It is a physically intimate culture, with plenty of pecks on the cheek for women and bone-crushing handshakes, bear hugs and backslaps for men." If drinking is the thesis statement of the paragraph, what does the rest of the paragraph have to do with that? //

First one was easy. Just take out "Russia and".
I'll give 'em that one, though I thought adding Russians and Russia in the same sentence was part and parcel of the whole "keyword" loading approach. My bad.
The second redlining was warranted. So I subsequently moved and reworded these into a new paragraph, which discussed socializing in broader terms and included smoking in public and smoking rates.

Then I submitted this piece for the FIFTH time.
Here's the fifth rejection...
"Before testing unknown waters[,] however, it’s wise to have some knowledge about the culture and social practices of a country."//

In other words, this editor wanted a comma after the word "waters".
That’s incorrect.
And I know it’s incorrect not just because I say so, but because that sentence comes before the previously rejected edits.
In other words, whoever edited this the first time found no problem with that comma where it was.
Yet I’m sitting here now, looking at a FIFTH rejection.

I’ve found accepted articles here with glaring typos and, as I’ve pointed out before, phrases like “mind-field”.

There’s two issues here.
The first - and most concerning - is that the editorial standards are inconsistent.
How is it that one editor can allow that comma and yet on the next submission, my piece is rejected because of it?

The second problem, based upon my discovery of grammatical and punctuation errors in accepted articles, is that this practice of "heightened editorializing" is obviously intended to lessen the lighten the editorial load when it comes to dealing with "new writers".
If it’s not corporate policy, then there's most certainly a cognitive bias at play.

From my perspective, CC is erecting capricious barriers to new writers.
Every hurdle I've surmounted has simply earned me a more difficult one to overcome.

At this point I've invested about 20-30 hours into having a 550 word piece accepted by a company that seems inclined to treat me like garbage.
4-7 hours of research.
5-8 hours of writing the long form 2500 word piece.
1-2 hours downsizing it into a 500 word piece.
4-6 hours of submitting it, based upon 30 - 40 minutes each time writing out the summary and tags.

So here...

[mnicol22]

Hi Hugh,

I understand your frustration, but you shouldn't feel like you're the only one who's getting multiple rejections. When I first joined C-C, I had every single article rejected for every possible reason you can imagine, from run-on sentences and awkward wording, to misplaced commas and typos. I took the editors' comments to heart, and revised each document multiple times before resubmitting. It felt like a huge waste of time at that point, but I've never regretted not giving up. My last 30 documents have gone straight through -not a single rejection!

What I'm trying to say is that you need to get used to rejections. They're not personal, and I don't think the editors are out to get newbies. Instead, they want to teach every newcomer to pay attention to detail and do proper self-editing. For example, if you had proofread the entire document every time you got a rejection, you would have spotted that missing comma that lead to your fifth rejection. It will take some time for you to learn how to spot and eliminate potential reasons for rejection -as it did for all of us- but you'll figure things out in the end.

Think about it: if the editors didn't really want your piece, they would have simply said "Please, do not resubmit"

[Hugh]

I appreciate what you're saying and I hope it's apparent I'm not some simpering crybaby who runs at the slightest difficulty.
But I'm not sure you're getting the gist of the problem.

I can only assume that whoever edited this before the last editor agreed with my punctuation, because as I said - they did not "redline" that comma as a problem.
Yes, they had issues much further down in the piece, but they let that sentence stand. As they should have.
It's NOT a mistake.
It's a mistake on the part of an over zealous editor. And they're being over zealous because I'm new.
This seems patently obvious to me, because I've spotted typos and some pretty egregious grammar on accepted pieces.
As I mentioned in a previous post, one piece used the phrase "mind-field" to describe what consequences might befall a potential investor.
But that got through.

Yet my "comma error" (which it isn't) doesn't? Even after it had already made it through a previous editor?
This is my valuable time and some pretty decent, well researched writing that these people are playing with, and it's exhausting.

There's only so much "newbie hazing" people are willing to put up with and frankly I've eaten my share at this point. Now it just seems capricious and petty.

I'm very nearly at a point where it would more valuable to me to take this piece (and the others on Brazil, India, etc) and slap them up as a series on a Hub Page or a Squidoo Lens. Throw in some ad sense or Amazon ads around it and take my chances that way. I think a well written, very comprehensive series on business culture in the BRIC countries (among others) would do well enough for me - and for any agency that didn't go out of its way to prevent me from getting my writing out to a wider audience. We're at FOUR WEEKS since my first submission... and I haven't even gotten one-fifth of my article accepted!

I have no idea what these people are looking for because they are not being consistent.
That's the problem.

So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to let this poll go til Sunday. On Sunday I'll check the results.
If they're not favourable, this entire piece (and the others on this topic) will get sliced into a series which I'll post to Squiddo or Hub Pages. If the results indicate people feel I should continue letting CC kick my head in, I'll submit it one last time, with one MINOR change.

[Celeste Stewart]

The editors don't go through each article line by line once they start seeing errors. They point out what they might have noticed initially but that's no guarantee that there aren't other errors that could trigger another rejection. Frustrating I know, but it's not practical to perform a line-by-line review of every submission. And yes, editors miss stuff like "mind field."

"Russia and Russians place domestic order above all other values and this accounts for the countries tendency to be ruled by strong-willed, authoritarian figures." -- Run on sentence. //

For example, the editors said the above is a run-on, but they didn't mention that "countries tendency" needs to be "country's tendency" (or countries' tendency if you're referring collectively to a group of countries in the former USSR). If you correct the run-on but miss that mistake and resubmit, then the article might get rejected again. Or perhaps worse, it could be accepted with a mistake that neither you nor the editor caught -- and you'd have your own mind field moment.

I believe the sentence above needs a comma between the two clauses to address the run-on. I agree that removing "Russia and" is a good idea.

Russians place domestic order above all other values, and this accounts for the country's tendency to be ruled by strong-willed, authoritarian figures.

[jak]

I'm sorry you're having so many problems. However, I was going to point out what Celeste did about the run-on sentence. I would also agree with the editor that there should be a comma before and after 'however'.

Since editors have the option to suspend an account after three rejections, they obviously think you will make it. If I were you, I'd leave the piece to simmer for several days and get on with writing and submitting other articles. Then come back to it and proof read objectively before resubmitting.

Do hope you get it through next time.

[jowal]

Hugh, the word paranoid springs to mind. You aren't being rejected because you are a newbie, you are making genuine mistakes.
I have had endless rejections since I joined C-C 4 years ago and there were times they left me chewing the carpet.

When I first joined it was far harsher as I'm sure many other C-C writers can confirm.... we were offered no advice as to our mistakes, and the notification email was always headed 'Your article has been rejected ' How about that for a b.... crusher?? Nowadays the system is much more user-friendly. That is not to say that I don't have screaming fits every now and again, as I'm a UK writer and there are points of grammar on which I fiercely disagree . One of my last rejections was for saying something 'had been proved to be'. 'No, no' said She/He Who Must Be Obeyed 'It is 'proven' ' On this side of the Atlantic I think not, but heyho , 'Swallow hard' I said to myself 'and alter the bloody word.'

So my point is...... just take it on the chin, and if you want to write articles for one of the better sites on the internet(however much they p... you off at times) heed their advice and make the necessary changes. Then you'll get articles in your portfolio, and [b]then [/b]you might stand a chance of selling them (for rather more than writing for Adsense or a content mill I might add).