Constant Content

Hi, Ed -
As the editor, how do you deal with information or "tips" you know to be erroneous or just plain bad advice? I certainly know you can't be expected to know everything about everything, but if you thought an article about, say, writing showed the writer didn't know what he/she was even talking about, are you obligated to let it pass through if it otherwise meets CC standards?

I grant that it is hard for everyone else to judge an article when only excerpts are posted, but if an excerpt leaves my head spinning and causes me to be embarrassed for that writer, I'm concerned about what buyers would think (based on the assumption that a buyer of articles about proper writing knows something about writing), since that excerpt is all they see as well. This affects all of us if it leads to undeserved judgments about the site.

If I know the information contained within the article is incorrect, or if it is obvious that the author has not done the research (especially if I can use Google to get the correct information in a couple of seconds), I will reject. However, I can't fact check every article, and I don't know everything about everything. I also reject if the author hasn't made well-supported arguments.

To be honest, though, I rarely reject for information. I have so many factors to consider when reviewing articles - submission guidelines, the submission form, plagiarism checks, grammar, punctuation, readability, content . . . and sometimes, if an author is having problems expressing their meaning, it doesn't matter what information he or she is presenting because it isn't communicated clearly. I do what I can using my own knowledge base and experience.

Ed

I completely understand. I am concerned about a recent article (i.e. posted segments) on grammar tips -- differentiating between two similar words - that leaves me confounded and concerned. Maybe when you have an extra few minutes sometime you could check it out. I think it's a double u tee... well, you know what I mean. And of course you can use those extra minutes to tell me to go soak my head, too.

It wouldn't bother me if it was about broccoli or nail polish, but it's about writing, of all things. Big ouch.

Yeah, I hear you. I've been trying hard to screen these articles very carefully. I've had several authors submit grammar-related content who make the same mistakes they're trying to tell people to avoid. It's very frustrating.

Ed

Thanks for not choosing the go-soak-your-head option. Although sometimes I envy you your job, I realize that sometimes it just plain sox.

Have a relaxing rest-of-the-weekend, OK?

Okay. I'll go blow out the insides of some chicken eggs in honor of the fertility festival before standing around the burning effigy of Winter.

Thanks for being an eagle-eye, Grouchy!

Ed

And thank YOU for that visual. You're not really Dave Barry by any chance, are you?

If only I was a nationally syndicated comedic writer. Sorry, most of my jokes are lame. You haven't noticed? I'm sure everyone else has!

Ha! Well, if it's any consolation, most of Dave Barry's jokes are lame too but he strikes a cord. I still call my (now dead) dog "Zippy" in honor of one of his ongoing dialogs about having a "main" dog and an auxillary dog, "Zippy."

You're right, Celeste - It IS true you can make a living off of making lame jokes. Maybe I should get into that business.

The requisite need for poor grammar would be the end of you. Just stay put and stick to dreaming.

Good advice.

I know what I want to be when I grow up: a meteorologist. You get to be wrong all the time and still make a good living.

CR - Growing up isn't all it's cracked up to be. I advise against it.

I've been holding out for years.