Spyware guide rejected again

[vjlenin]

Hi all, I just got the rejection letter for spyware guide article now. It reads: This article has not been adequately revised. We cannot accept it. Do not resubmit.

Is it that I cannot submit this article again to CC at all?? Ed? Even after correcting all mistakes? This is weird.

After your first three rejections, I edited out all that I think caused the rejection. Just now I read it over and can't spot anything that might have caused the rejection now. Can someone help me revise this article? I have included the entire article below:

------------------------------------------------------

A Spyware Guide: Detect and Prevent Infection

The Anti-Spyware Coalition (ASC), which is a group of academics, anti-spyware companies, and consumer organizations, defines spyware as:

“Spyware is a term for Tracking Software deployed without adequate notice, consent, or control for the user.”

Spyware are installed into your system without your knowledge, in order to show you unwanted advertisements. They can record your personal data and browsing trends for showing better targeted ads. Unlike viruses or Trojans, spyware may not damage your software or operating system. They can, however, slow down your system a lot.

[vjlenin]

OK not the entire article, that's up to more than half of the article. Celeste, Hayley, and others, Could u please let me know all the errors you spot in it so I can see em. And Ed, if we correct all the errors on it, is it OK for me to resubmit?

[Celeste Stewart]

I deleted the posts containing your article as we really shouldn't post large excerpts here due to Google indexing issues. I looked at it and have a few suggestions. This article had several obvious grammatical errors. Here's what jumped out at me (there may be more):

A group of academic *institutions* (rather than academics)

80 per cent should be 80 percent. (Is this a UK/USA difference? I noticed another UK writer using "per cent" rather than percent before. Just curious.)

"Tracking Software" should not be capitalized. It is not a proper noun.

The term spyware, though refering to a group of programs, is singular rather than plural. Therefore "Spyware *is* installed on your system without your knowledge" (not *are*). Had you said "Spyware applications are installed," that would have been okay but "Spyware are installed" is not. I see this misuse of spyware is/are throughout the text, so that's a major one.

The contraction "mayn't" isn't a legitimate contraction. (My daughter used to say "I amn't" a lot when she was a toddler :) ) Use "may not" instead of "mayn't."

References to the U.S. Social Security system and Social Security numbers are capitalized while vague references to Social Security are not. Therefore "stealing Social Security numbers" would be correctly capitalized while "Some countries do not have a social security system" would also be correct. In this case, since you are refering to Social Security numbers, the words "Social Security" should be capitalized.

Those are just a few errors that I found on a quick scan. Clearly, the article needs a bit more tweaking. I can't speak for Ed as far as his willingness to look at it again. I'm just an observer who saw your post and thought I'd give you a little insight as to where some of the errors may be. Plus you asked nice :)

[HayleyWriter]

Hi Lenin,

If you would like me to look at your article and provide feedback as Celeste has done - that's fine. Can I suggest you email me through the CC system (Contact this Author from my profile page) and paste your article into the email. That system is not indexed by the search websites like Google. I am happy to give you any assistance - especially as you did ask nicely!

Kind regards,

Hayley

[vjlenin]

Hi Celeste, thanks for the reply. The first error (within the quote) should be left as such and Ed clarified so.

About spyware being used as plural, Ed had said in the last post that spyware can be plural or singular. That's why I used spyware plural in some sentences while singular in others. Ed, would you clarify this once more?

About per cent, yes it's the UK version and I think it's correct to say per cent and not percent. Ed?

About mayn't thanks for the suggestion. I really need to change it. Thanks also about SSN


Thanks Celeste for the suggestions. Can I send you the full article by email? I would love to hear more of your suggestions.
Hayley, thanks for your suggestion. I am sending you the article by CC system. Let me know what you think.

[Celeste Stewart]

The term spyware is singular yet plural as it refers to a collection of applications so it's really confusing. Earlier, I think that you and Ed were discussing the use of the term "spywares" in plural form which isn't quite right. Think of spyware as a group of applications. For example, if you had a group of boys you might say that the group (singular) is going camping. You might also say that the boys (plural) are going camping. So, referring to the "group," you would use singular structures even though the group is made up of a bunch of boys. However, when referring to the boys as boys and not as a group, then this particular group of boys becomes plural and the verbs must reflect it. The same concept holds true for spyware. For example: Spyware (singular - the group) is a threat to your privacy. These applications (plural - individual applications) are evil. Hope that makes sense.

Of course, you can send me a note and I'll do my best to give you some insight.

[HayleyWriter]

Hi,

I have just sent you a reply. I hope it all makes sense!

Kind regards,

Hayley

[vjlenin]

Hayley, thanks a lot. You have provided me with a lot of suggestions, and they sure will help me out.

As I got the suggestion not to submit this article again, I need Ed's note in this regard. Even if I edit it fully, can't I submit it back??

Celeste, I will do a complete editing (with suggestions from Hayley included), and may I send you the article afterward with some notes about why I would do something in some sentence? Could you tell me how it looks then?

I am sure the article is rather weird-looking now as it has been rigorously edited for grammar and word perfection. It's fascinating to think how much we still got to learn.

Lenin

[Ed]

No, I'm sorry, but this article has been rejected too many times. I am unable to review it again.

[HayleyWriter]

Hi Ed,

Question for you. At what point do authors receive such a notice - do not resubmit this article again? I am only asking because one of my affiliates, GailWriter, received the notice the first time she submitted a particular article this week. I can certainly understand that if the article has been revised a couple of times by the author and is still not up to standard that you would want to use such a notice to prevent you from receiving the same article several times to review. However, I am surprised to hear that you would put the "do not resubmit" notice on an article submitted for the first time. GailWriter has over 40 articles approved, so her writing is obviously meeting the CC standards most of the time. In fact, I am reviewing each of her articles prior to submission, so at least two authors are proofreading her articles. I must admit I was surprised to hear she had received that notice on the article submitted for the first time this week. Can you please clarify how this works?

Thanks,

Hayley

[vjlenin]

Oops! So that settles it. I can't resubmit this article. So sorry to hear that though. Yes, I also have the same question as Hayley, Ed. Could u clarify that?

Lenin

[HayleyWriter]

Meanwhile Lenin, if you want to work on a different article, I would be happy to proofread it for you to help you out BEFORE you submit to Ed. As you can see from my comment above, even with another author proofreading the article, there may be errors that are missed and that Ed picks up, but it does give you a better chance of catching those errors and not driving Ed nuts submitting the same article too many times.

Sorry about the Spyware article - it did have some good ideas!

Kind regards,

Hayley

[vjlenin]

Sure Hayley, thanks for the great help you are doing. I am sending over my latest article. Sadly, it was just rejected for something wrong with short summary. This editing thing can really drive me crazy. Someone's help is really what I need. I will send it over to u.

Lenin

[Ed]

Hayley, the writing in question consistently submits content with awkward comma errors and other errors. After repeatedly sending this author information about the correct use of commas, her commas usage has not consistently improved. I'm unable to review articles that contain such errors from the outset. By this time, these errors should not be an issue. When authors have been made aware of persistent problems, it is the authors' responsibility to correct these errors in their own writing before submission. There must be a concerted effort to change and correct - free sources of information abound. If a particular author doesn't understand, then no more submissions should be made by that author until the concept is mastered. As we all know, repeated rejections and no sign of improvement are grounds for account suspension. I know commas are an issue that can be difficult to perfect, but I have been very explicit with my advice and have taken extra time to find sources that apply to the reason for rejection.

Thanks,
Ed

[vjlenin]

But Ed, in the rejection notes, the most an author gets is "due to grammar errors" "not fully revised" etc. You may be rejecting an article for various reasons, including comma usage, run-ons and others. But a writer can't possibly imagine what exactly caused the rejection, can she? She might miss a comma error and imagine that a weirdly constructed but correct sentence caused the error. She may resubmit correcting some sentences that she assumes caused the rejection. But the actual error may remain.

On the other hand, if you include some more information, such as the submitted file itself with underlines at places requiring corrections, that could be very helpful to an author. She will be able to learn why exactly the rejection happened, and stop making those errors in future submissions. This way, that author will become a better author start to submit errorfree articles in future. It will actually ease your job in the long run. Can the system be tweaked to make this possible?

Lenin