Greater Cut for Constant-Content if Proofread Option...

[palindrome2]

Constant-Content should allow for an option where they will receive a greater cut if they make all necessary corrections in proofreading a document. I imagine the reason why the reporting of errors in documents is so poor is because they don't want to be proofreading documents where they are not getting paid for it. This option would make it easier to submit content.

--

[EricScott]

I write articles for another website where the copy editors can make edits. I don't mind if they make a small fix for a typo that I let slip through. But sometimes the copy editors take it upon themselves to make a lot of changes. In some instances the changes totally alter the meaning of the sentence/paragraph/entire article. I think this usually happens when the copy editor does not have a lot of knowledge on the subject of the article.

What I like about CC is that there is an assumption that the writers are either professional writers or they are writers that take the time to pay attention to the details, proof read their articles and take responsibility for the content. Am I annoyed when I get a rejection for a stupid typo? Sure, but I am annoyed at myself and not the editor. I can't imagine how long it would take to get an article approved if the editor had to make corrections to all the article he reads.

[palindrome2]

Well, if there are only a few grammatical errors or such in a document, CC should take it upon themselves to document it and send it back to the author, rather than leave them guessing. If it is indeed the sense that they don't want to be your personal proofreader without compensation, then I think this is a good idea. Like I said, it could merely be an option, a check box you tick off giving them permission to completely proofread your article.

[Celeste Stewart]

I doubt this would fly. I've helped many writers edit their articles either before or after a submission and it's extremely time-consuming, more so if the article needs a lot of work (and yes, many articles need a lot of work). Unfortunately, at an average price of $30 before the cut, there wouldn't be enough money to pay for professional editing out of the price. Plus, if Ed corrected our minor or major errors, we'd continue making the same mistakes over and over, never improving and perhaps never knowing that we have a problem in the first place.

[palindrome2]

I doubt this would fly. I've helped many writers edit their articles either before or after a submission and it's extremely time-consuming, more so if the article needs a lot of work (and yes, many articles need a lot of work). Unfortunately, at an average price of $30 before the cut, there wouldn't be enough money to pay for professional editing out of the price. Plus, if Ed corrected our minor or major errors, we'd continue making the same mistakes over and over, never improving and perhaps never knowing that we have a problem in the first place.

I am proposing that they somehow not make the changes behind the author's back, but propose what changes need to be made. I have confidence in my writing, but I know I might make subtle grammatical errors in terms of tense or more esoteric things. So far, I have not received very good correctional information regarding one article I submitted thus far, and I know that my document doesn't need much more work. If there were an option to have them report just factual information based on careless and hard-to-detect mistakes like this, it would be helpful.

[Everhelpville]

I write articles for another website where the copy editors can make edits. I don't mind if they make a small fix for a typo that I let slip through. But sometimes the copy editors take it upon themselves to make a lot of changes. In some instances the changes totally alter the meaning of the sentence/paragraph/entire article. I think this usually happens when the copy editor does not have a lot of knowledge on the subject of the article.

What I like about CC is that there is an assumption that the writers are either professional writers or they are writers that take the time to pay attention to the details, proof read their articles and take responsibility for the content. Am I annoyed when I get a rejection for a stupid typo? Sure, but I am annoyed at myself and not the editor. I can't imagine how long it would take to get an article approved if the editor had to make corrections to all the article he reads.

I so agree. For me, grammar, punctuation, all that jazz, isn't jazz at all. It's the cardboard-dry, tasteless, necessary-evil aspect of writing. But if you call yourself a writer, pretend to be one, or hope to become one, I believe you have to warm up to the commas.

I've played ping pong with Ed and a couple of my articles because I was comma-happy and semi-colon stupid and just plain rusty when it came to punctuation. It was an embarrassing and unwelcome wake up call to realize I was actually going to have to open a friggin' book on grammar and punctuation!

It's hard. You sweat, and fret, and stew, and submit, and then see the darned thing come back at you. I've wanted to give up. It seems like a lot of pain and little gain. But if I choose to give it up, it will never be because my punctuation/grammar errors were not kindly pointed out to me by Ed.

Also, I wanted to add that my ego could never survive a copy editor like the ones you've described. I'm a "don't-touch-my-stuff!" kind of gal! Suggestions? Great, thanks. I can instantly recognize a suggestion that improves something, and they delight me. But to change my stuff without my input? No way.

Anyway, I enjoyed your post, agree with you, and just wanted to say that.

[EricScott]

It is indeed annoying to look at an article that was accepted to see parts of it chopped up. Most of the copy editors "over there" will make suggestions rather than make the changes themselves. The few that made big changes actually changed the meaning of what I wrote. Looking back there were probably a few sentences that could have been written better, but I believe that is the writer's job and not the copy editor's since the writer's name is on the article.

Anyway, I like how things work here. I have two articles waiting to be reviewed by Ed. I know I am jinxing myself and I will wake up to a rejection tomorrow morning

[Celeste Stewart]

I am proposing that they somehow not make the changes behind the author's back, but propose what changes need to be made. I have confidence in my writing, but I know I might make subtle grammatical errors in terms of tense or more esoteric things. So far, I have not received very good correctional information regarding one article I submitted thus far, and I know that my document doesn't need much more work. If there were an option to have them report just factual information based on careless and hard-to-detect mistakes like this, it would be helpful.

Ah, but Ed does propose what changes need to be made. He's often pointed out exactly what needed to be changed such as "I think you meant to type the word 'debt' not 'dept'" or "careful with your singular pronouns - use 'its' instead of 'their.'" Ed also often gives writers links to sources further explaining a grammar rule. I know he can't spend a ton of time on each rejection email, but you'll see. (Or hopefully you won't have too many more rejection notices in the first place).

[Debbi]

I prefer to make my own edits. The editor cannot know what I meant to say, and even if he or she did, I often find that revising the article myself makes it stronger.

I prefer to think of Ed as a reviewer or inspector, not an editor (which implies that he will make changes). If my article passes inspection, then I can be sure I did something right. If it doesn't, then it deserves to be kicked back to me for a rewrite. I can only learn and improve in the process. So far I have only been rejected a few times, mostly for font and file format problems in the beginning, but once or twice for sentence fragments or awkward phrasing. There were pretty explicit examples in my rejection letter which I quickly reparied. One of these times I did not agree with the critique but I still rewrote the questionable sentence and resubmitted. It passed the second time. But then I'm used to rewriting work until it meets an editor's needs, having written for print publications for many years.

Plus, I want my 65% I worked hard for that!

Debbi

[nichewriter]

I was just looking through the rejection notices I've gotten over the years and Ed has been pretty clear about where I went wrong. My last two rejections were almost 2 weeks ago and they were about tense shifts and inappropriate use of the conditional tense. I brushed up on those two Ed pointed out and did a sentence-by-sentence edit of the articles -- and found exactly where I made the errors. I fixed those up, and in the process managed to add some more to one of the articles, and broke down one long paragraph into bullet points (which was one of the problem paragraphs where I had misused the conditional tense). I waited a day to resubmit and they got accepted. Earlier today, both articles sold

I appreciate Ed's direction, and those rejections I get from him are wake up calls and opportunities for me to hone my writing skills - I wouldn't have learned of (and fixed) my tense shift problem if an editor had fixed those for me.

[Antonia]

Ed should be thought of more as a filter than a proofreader--I think people get hung up on the word "editor" and don't realize how much time it takes to mark up documents with suggestions. And I agree that it's not a good solution for CC to provide a proofreading service. If I can manage to proofread my own work and eliminate all errors 99% of the time, than I know ANYONE can. If you can't or don't want to learn, then that's another story.

Suggestion:

Authors who want to pay for their work to be proofread post their requests along with how much they're willing to pay (or maybe it's a set price per word). It would be an outright sum rather than a cut of the sale price (what if the article never sells). Only certain authors are approved to be proofreaders, to ensure that the authors who are paying for this service get what they're paying for. To protect the proofreader, the author pays the proofreader through CC and CC just adds the money to the monthly Paypal check, without taking a cut. It would need some help from jrichards on the development side but maybe it could be added to the todo list...

This would benefit everyone:
- authors who need help can get their work proofread and improve their chances of acceptance
- authors who proofread make a little extra money on the side
- CC receives fewer error-laden submissions

It also would permanently eliminate the periodical whines about how Ed didn't do this and Ed didn't do that and Ed is mean and Ed should change my diaper and wipe my nose... (I DON'T mean you palindrome2...your post was a great start to an interesting conversation...I'm referring to some really funny posts in the past directed against Ed:) )

[Celeste Stewart]

Many of do this for free already if asked. Normally, I would charge somewhere in the $40 per hour range for a similar service (and so far I have spent at least an hour on each CC critique I've given for free). A thank you is all that's needed for payment, but sometimes those don't even come which is why I kind of like the idea of getting money instead

[Ed]

Constant Content seeks to attract authors who can proofread their own work and who utilize self-editing practices. It also seeks quality authors who are interested in improving and developing their own craft. The simple fact of the matter is that we have many authors who can proofread and edit their own work so that it meets our requirements.


Ed